He's getting a bit flustered and reminds me we are what they say we are...
By the standard of those "You are what people see you as" arguments, ALL Asians are Chinese, unless they live near a Navy or Marine Corps base, then they're ALL Filipino; or if they live by an Army or Air Force base, they're ALL Korean. ALL Latinos west of the Mississippi are Mexican, and ALL Latinos east of the Mississippi are Puerto Rican. Afterall, people ARE what they are seen as, right?
EXACTLY! Which means I am Italian, Puerto Rican, Jewish, Black, Creole, White, Pakistani, Hawaiian, etc.!
Joined: 07 Oct 2007 {Posts: 248 } Location: United States
Posted: Sat 09 Aug 2008 18:51 Post subject:
I've actually noticed that whites one drop pretty often. Actually, I think many americans tend to one drop darker skinned mixed people. But I think white folk couldn't care less if you tell them you're not only black. Black folk on the other hand act as if they have some deeper reason for calling mixed folk "only black." Of course, this is based on my experiences.
Joined: 07 Oct 2007 {Posts: 248 } Location: United States
Posted: Sat 09 Aug 2008 19:01 Post subject:
pianoplayer111 wrote:
G-Man, that is true. Many of the Hispanics where I live will tell you in a minute that they consider themselves to be white. And if not white, then they will vehemently state that there is NO African blood in them. Many people seem to have this attitude, actually.
Are these hispanics with obvious African features? Honestly, I'd laugh in their faces if they denied any african ancestry if it was visible in their features. Nothing wrong identifying as white, but to deny afro ancestry so vehemently is pretty sad.
I've actually noticed that whites one drop pretty often.
The only white people I know of who beat people with the ODR stick are the ones who have been heavily influenced by AA supporters of ODR.
Heck from what I've seen, most white folks born after the Civil Rights era don't even know about ODR until an AA tells them about it.
I think what happens is we compare black reaction to white reaction. And it seems they don't.
OTHER stated earlier in this post that whites tend to be pretty quiet about what they believe/think when it comes to this stuff.
I can barely get a conversation going about race/race ideas before most cut me off with a "I treat everyone equally" statement.
I've said this before, that whites don't always come out and say it. Even the white guy I posted in this topic about recently didn't say "One drop makes you black"
But it comes out through statements and gestures prejudiced assumptions. Not the same as what may come from black american which tends to be more direct to the point.
white americans do it in other ways.
Joined: 07 Oct 2007 {Posts: 248 } Location: United States
Posted: Sun 10 Aug 2008 05:47 Post subject:
Richard Miller wrote:
Grasshoppa wrote:
I've actually noticed that whites one drop pretty often.
The only white people I know of who beat people with the ODR stick are the ones who have been heavily influenced by AA supporters of ODR.
Heck from what I've seen, most white folks born after the Civil Rights era don't even know about ODR until an AA tells them about it.
Maybe i should be more clear. I think my usage of the ODR is a little off. The ODR applies to people who "look white" correct? Well, forget that usage...I'm talking about mixed people who are clearly mixed. It seems that some white folk are quick to call the people with mixed heritage black based on appearance alone, however they would not argue if you claimed a mixed heritage. So...yeah, that's what i meant by "whites one drop pretty often" but actually it's not really the ODR in that case.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Sun 10 Aug 2008 12:44 Post subject:
Grasshoppa wrote:
...I'm talking about mixed people who are clearly mixed. It seems that some white folk are quick to call the people with mixed heritage black based on appearance alone, however they would not argue if you claimed a mixed heritage. So...yeah, that's what i meant by "whites one drop pretty often" but actually it's not really the ODR in that case.
That's probably because the majority of mulattoes, blasians, zamboes, etc still identify as black. So when the majority of people who look like us ID as black, it's going to be assumed that you and I do as well.
Joined: 03 Jun 2005 {Posts: 274 } Location: California
Posted: Sun 10 Aug 2008 18:31 Post subject:
Richard Miller wrote:
Grasshoppa wrote:
I've actually noticed that whites one drop pretty often.
The only white people I know of who beat people with the ODR stick are the ones who have been heavily influenced by AA supporters of ODR.
Heck from what I've seen, most white folks born after the Civil Rights era don't even know about ODR until an AA tells them about it.
Interesting...I have not found that the case in California. I have met many 'liberal' caucasians as well as conservative ones who have never or rarely interacted with american blacks yet have really polarized versions of who is white and who is black. And they have no idea what ODR is. Perhaps it's a regional affliction. My parents are from the Deep South & I was raised in CA. My mother has stated on many occasions that CA whites seem more obsessed about race than Southerners.
I've actually noticed that whites one drop pretty often.
The only white people I know of who beat people with the ODR stick are the ones who have been heavily influenced by AA supporters of ODR.
Heck from what I've seen, most white folks born after the Civil Rights era don't even know about ODR until an AA tells them about it.
I'd make a distinction between "one-dropping" someone and hitting them over the head with the ODR. (I assume we are talking about hypodescent.) In my experience, most U.S. white people see people with faint visible African ancestry as black people; they just don't have an investment in how that person identifies.
If said person says they are "mixed" or some such thing instead of black, the white person will either shrug their shoulders and still see the person as black or accept the claim that that the person isn't.
If the white person is obsessed with proving he's a racial progressive, he'll "hit the person over the head," as in berate the person for his non-black identity or insist the person is “running away” from something because the person doesn’t see himself as black.
Most non-black people in the U.S. don’t really think too deeply about hypodescent. A person who has some noticeable African ancestry is black because in the mind of that person they just are. However, AAs as a group have more invested in hypodescent, so the “hitting over the head” thing will likely come from that source.
Posted: Mon 11 Aug 2008 01:45 Post subject: Whites and hypodescent
G-Man wrote:
Richard Miller wrote:
Grasshoppa wrote:
I've actually noticed that whites one drop pretty often.
The only white people I know of who beat people with the ODR stick are the ones who have been heavily influenced by AA supporters of ODR.
Heck from what I've seen, most white folks born after the Civil Rights era don't even know about ODR until an AA tells them about it.
I'd make a distinction between "one-dropping" someone and hitting them over the head with the ODR. (I assume we are talking about hypodescent.) In my experience, most U.S. white people see people with faint visible African ancestry as black people; they just don't have an investment in how that person identifies.
If said person says they are "mixed" or some such thing instead of black, the white person will either shrug their shoulders and still see the person as black or accept the claim that that the person isn't.
If the white person is obsessed with proving he's a racial progressive, he'll "hit the person over the head," as in berate the person for his non-black identity or insist the person is “running away” from something because the person doesn’t see himself as black.
Most non-black people in the U.S. don’t really think too deeply about hypodescent. A person who has some noticeable African ancestry is black because in the mind of that person they just are. However, AAs as a group have more invested in hypodescent, so the “hitting over the head” thing will likely come from that source.
Whites (and others) who encounter significant numbers of Hispanics or Arabs seem to follow what I call a "gentlemen's agreement" to not "insult" those groups by mentioning their SSA ancestry. If you ask someone parroting the hypodescent or ODR nonsense about Hispanics and why they are not "black," for example, the usual response is silence. There's no politically correct "script" for responding to the question they never expected to hear.
Posted: Mon 11 Aug 2008 02:05 Post subject: Re: Whites and hypodescent
Powell wrote:
G-Man wrote:
Richard Miller wrote:
Grasshoppa wrote:
I've actually noticed that whites one drop pretty often.
The only white people I know of who beat people with the ODR stick are the ones who have been heavily influenced by AA supporters of ODR.
Heck from what I've seen, most white folks born after the Civil Rights era don't even know about ODR until an AA tells them about it.
I'd make a distinction between "one-dropping" someone and hitting them over the head with the ODR. (I assume we are talking about hypodescent.) In my experience, most U.S. white people see people with faint visible African ancestry as black people; they just don't have an investment in how that person identifies.
If said person says they are "mixed" or some such thing instead of black, the white person will either shrug their shoulders and still see the person as black or accept the claim that that the person isn't.
If the white person is obsessed with proving he's a racial progressive, he'll "hit the person over the head," as in berate the person for his non-black identity or insist the person is “running away” from something because the person doesn’t see himself as black.
Most non-black people in the U.S. don’t really think too deeply about hypodescent. A person who has some noticeable African ancestry is black because in the mind of that person they just are. However, AAs as a group have more invested in hypodescent, so the “hitting over the head” thing will likely come from that source.
Whites (and others) who encounter significant numbers of Hispanics or Arabs seem to follow what I call a "gentlemen's agreement" to not "insult" those groups by mentioning their SSA ancestry. If you ask someone parroting the hypodescent or ODR nonsense about Hispanics and why they are not "black," for example, the usual response is silence. There's no politically correct "script" for responding to the question they never expected to hear.
That's true, a person generally is blatently racist if they 1drop hispanics.
I read in a book about biracial experiences and one of the sections authors was 1/2Asian 1/2Euro and she was with her white Texan or Californian female cousin who warned about "Hispanics who are really niggers undercover" as she put it.
Posted: Mon 11 Aug 2008 14:41 Post subject: Re: Whites and hypodescent
gemini072 wrote:
Powell wrote:
G-Man wrote:
Richard Miller wrote:
Grasshoppa wrote:
I've actually noticed that whites one drop pretty often.
The only white people I know of who beat people with the ODR stick are the ones who have been heavily influenced by AA supporters of ODR.
Heck from what I've seen, most white folks born after the Civil Rights era don't even know about ODR until an AA tells them about it.
I'd make a distinction between "one-dropping" someone and hitting them over the head with the ODR. (I assume we are talking about hypodescent.) In my experience, most U.S. white people see people with faint visible African ancestry as black people; they just don't have an investment in how that person identifies.
If said person says they are "mixed" or some such thing instead of black, the white person will either shrug their shoulders and still see the person as black or accept the claim that that the person isn't.
If the white person is obsessed with proving he's a racial progressive, he'll "hit the person over the head," as in berate the person for his non-black identity or insist the person is “running away” from something because the person doesn’t see himself as black.
Most non-black people in the U.S. don’t really think too deeply about hypodescent. A person who has some noticeable African ancestry is black because in the mind of that person they just are. However, AAs as a group have more invested in hypodescent, so the “hitting over the head” thing will likely come from that source.
Whites (and others) who encounter significant numbers of Hispanics or Arabs seem to follow what I call a "gentlemen's agreement" to not "insult" those groups by mentioning their SSA ancestry. If you ask someone parroting the hypodescent or ODR nonsense about Hispanics and why they are not "black," for example, the usual response is silence. There's no politically correct "script" for responding to the question they never expected to hear.
That's true, a person generally is blatently racist if they 1drop hispanics.
I read in a book about biracial experiences and one of the sections authors was 1/2Asian 1/2Euro and she was with her white Texan or Californian female cousin who warned about "Hispanics who are really niggers undercover" as she put it.
Blatantly racist? Not sure if that is the case necessarily. I think it all depends on the person's point of origin in the U.S. Many blacks and whites unfamiliar with Caribbean Latinos (this is the Latino group we are talking about after all) "one drop" them (or maybe hypodescent them is the proper term) without hesitation upon encountering them. Even other Hispanics from Euro/Amerindian societies do this.
I live in the Washington D.C. area and see this all the time. Many Salvadorans and other Central Americans, along with black and white Americans often see the growing Dominican and Puerto Rican populations as simply black, with the exception of those who appear European or are too ambiguous to classify. This is changing somewhat because there are more of them down here than there were in the last ten or fifteen years, but you still come across people who “hypodescent” Hispanics from the Caribbean down here.
Powell’s statement is true, at least in New York or other areas where large numbers of Caribbean Latinos reside. Most people aren’t aware that Mexicans have African ancestry.
chicagotribune.com
Choosing sides when racial lines blur
Dawn Turner Trice
August 11, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama is fond of saying more unites us than divides us. To some, that may sound like campaign chatter, but it's so true. Still, few areas outside of race exist where it's harder to see those commonalities.
Last week, on the "Exploring Race" forum (chicagotribune.com/race), I posted an essay, "Are you 'biracial' or 'black with a white mom?' " by Michelle Hughes, a Chicago adoption attorney and co-founder of a company specializing in diversity training for multiracial families. Hughes addressed the subtle and not-so-subtle difference between being "biracial" and "black with a white mom." As an example, Hughes, whose mother is white and father is black, said she considers herself biracial in part because she doesn't want to choose between her parents.
On the other hand, Obama, whose mother was white and father was Kenyan, has said he identifies as African-American, or "black with a white mom," in part because he looks black. And in this country how a person looks matters with regard to race.
One of the things that I liked about Hughes' essay is that it helped me understand something about a type of e-mail that I've been receiving since Obama started his presidential run. The e-mails are from white readers who feel slighted the candidate doesn't identify as both white and black, or biracial.
One e-mailer said: "While we are supporters of Barack Obama, we wonder why . . . all we hear is that he is the first black presidential candidate, totally ignoring the fact that he is half-white. Why is his white heritage excluded? This exclusion in effect alienates white voters and is a missed opportunity to connect with the U.S. voter population."
A reader commented on the essay: "Well-written article and so very true. As for Obama, you have spoken the words I, as a white female, have been complaining about for over a year now. Why can't Obama come out and proclaim himself as biracial? It's who he is. And as a white woman, I am insulted that he has not yet defined himself this way—the accurate and correct way."
I find this interesting because, historically, it's the same sentiment some blacks, particularly older blacks, have expressed—that feeling of being slighted by a biracial person who doesn't identify as either solely or mostly black.
Some felt slighted when black relatives who decided to "pass" for white abandoned the fold; some felt slighted when black people staked claim in (or created) an American Indian heritage (or some other one) to be anything but black.
In her essay, Hughes recalled the stink in the black community that golfer Tiger Woods made when he said he considered himself "Cablanasian," a description that combined his Caucasian, Black and Asian ancestries.
History played a huge role in this for blacks, but the hurt is familiar.
On one hand, a lot of people (black, white, whatever) couldn't care less how Obama identifies racially. But others do.
For some white people, this is about him accurately depicting his race. If elected president, Obama technically wouldn't be the first black U.S. president. He'd be the first mixed-race U.S. president. (Well, considering science and genetics, he'd be the first mixed-race president with brown skin.)
But this isn't just about being accurate. This is also about hard feelings, but this time from white people. The e-mailer used the word "alienated." The forum commentator said she felt "insulted."
Common ground? Yes or no. You tell me.
As a programming note: On Wednesday, I'll post a fascinating essay by a Korean-American writer who discusses being an adoptee who had to learn how to define beauty. Tune in and keep visiting us at "Exploring Race," chicagotribune.com/race.
chicagotribune.com
Choosing sides when racial lines blur
Dawn Turner Trice
August 11, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama is fond of saying more unites us than divides us. To some, that may sound like campaign chatter, but it's so true. Still, few areas outside of race exist where it's harder to see those commonalities.
Last week, on the "Exploring Race" forum (chicagotribune.com/race), I posted an essay, "Are you 'biracial' or 'black with a white mom?' " by Michelle Hughes, a Chicago adoption attorney and co-founder of a company specializing in diversity training for multiracial families. Hughes addressed the subtle and not-so-subtle difference between being "biracial" and "black with a white mom." As an example, Hughes, whose mother is white and father is black, said she considers herself biracial in part because she doesn't want to choose between her parents.
On the other hand, Obama, whose mother was white and father was Kenyan, has said he identifies as African-American, or "black with a white mom," in part because he looks black. And in this country how a person looks matters with regard to race.
One of the things that I liked about Hughes' essay is that it helped me understand something about a type of e-mail that I've been receiving since Obama started his presidential run. The e-mails are from white readers who feel slighted the candidate doesn't identify as both white and black, or biracial.
One e-mailer said: "While we are supporters of Barack Obama, we wonder why . . . all we hear is that he is the first black presidential candidate, totally ignoring the fact that he is half-white. Why is his white heritage excluded? This exclusion in effect alienates white voters and is a missed opportunity to connect with the U.S. voter population."
More excuses not to vote for him. Are they saying they cannot connect with a black person? Does Oprah have to be biracial or visually of white ancestry for most of white female Americans to connect with her. the answer is no, do they feel alientated by her blackness? No.
A reader commented on the essay: "Well-written article and so very true. As for Obama, you have spoken the words I, as a white female, have been complaining about for over a year now. Why can't Obama come out and proclaim himself as biracial? It's who he is. And as a white woman, I am insulted that he has not yet defined himself this way—the accurate and correct way."
I find this interesting because, historically, it's the same sentiment some blacks, particularly older blacks, have expressed—that feeling of being slighted by a biracial person who doesn't identify as either solely or mostly black.
Some felt slighted when black relatives who decided to "pass" for white abandoned the fold; some felt slighted when black people staked claim in (or created) an American Indian heritage (or some other one) to be anything but black.
In her essay, Hughes recalled the stink in the black community that golfer Tiger Woods made when he said he considered himself "Cablanasian," a description that combined his Caucasian, Black and Asian ancestries.
History played a huge role in this for blacks, but the hurt is familiar.
On one hand, a lot of people (black, white, whatever) couldn't care less how Obama identifies racially. But others do.
For some white people, this is about him accurately depicting his race. If elected president, Obama technically wouldn't be the first black U.S. president. He'd be the first mixed-race U.S. president. (Well, considering science and genetics, he'd be the first mixed-race president with brown skin.)
But this isn't just about being accurate. This is also about hard feelings, but this time from white people. The e-mailer used the word "alienated." The forum commentator said she felt "insulted."
I think this is crap. If he was a non mixed/biracial black person would they feel connected or alienated because the person had no what ancestry? Obamas racial designation or identity has nothing to do with it. Should black americans feel alientated when a white person is president. Or does it matter? Since the 1st American president every single one has been white. Which one if any admitted to SSancestry which one said I'm my mother was an octoroon and my daddy white, to appease the black colored voters.
Common ground? Yes or no. You tell me.
As a programming note: On Wednesday, I'll post a fascinating essay by a Korean-American writer who discusses being an adoptee who had to learn how to define beauty. Tune in and keep visiting us at "Exploring Race," chicagotribune.com/race.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Mon 11 Aug 2008 17:22 Post subject: Re: Whites who oppose hypodescent
gemini072 wrote:
More excuses not to vote for him. Are they saying they cannot connect with a black person? Does Oprah have to be biracial or visually of white ancestry for most of white female Americans to connect with her. the answer is no, do they feel alientated by her blackness? No.
Bad example. Unlike Obama, Oprah does not have the white half to insult by not identifying with it. In other words, Obama had the rope. He hung himself with it. Oprah, on the other hand, never had the rope to begin with.
Posted: Mon 11 Aug 2008 20:04 Post subject: Re: Whites who oppose hypodescent
Richard Miller wrote:
gemini072 wrote:
More excuses not to vote for him. Are they saying they cannot connect with a black person? Does Oprah have to be biracial or visually of white ancestry for most of white female Americans to connect with her. the answer is no, do they feel alientated by her blackness? No.
Bad example. Unlike Obama, Oprah does not have the white half to insult by not identifying with it. In other words, Obama had the rope. He hung himself with it. Oprah, on the other hand, never had the rope to begin with.
My point is, being half white has nothing to do with it. It definately shouldn't.
Most of Oprah's audience is white American women for Middle American Rural Urban & Suburban. The connection is not about her race.
Are they saying if Obama was full black they wouldn't consider him?
If he looked the way he does but is not biracial MGM would they insist he spotlight his non-black ancestry? I doubt it.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Mon 11 Aug 2008 21:46 Post subject:
Let's put the shoe on the other foot here:
Seeing as how Obama is half white, he is equally entitled to identify that way if he so chooses - so what if he did? How would AA's react (keeping Tiger Woods in mind)? Do you think that he'd secure the black vote that way?
These white folks are no worse. In fact, I actually like the white folks' stance better - at least they're asking Obama to identify with ALL of what he is, instead of demanding that he identify of SOLELY with them.
Seeing as how Obama is half white, he is equally entitled to identify that way if he so chooses - so what if he did? How would AA's react (keeping Tiger Woods in mind)? Do you think that he'd secure the black vote that way?
These white folks are no worse. In fact, I actually like the white folks' stance better - at least they're asking Obama to identify with ALL of what he is, instead of demanding that he identify of SOLELY with them.
It goes back to reality, Right now he is running for President. Do we care about the identity of John McCain? He has the priviledge to not have to deal with that at all. If Obama was white MGM or 100%SSA how far would he get bothered. What does his identity matter? Will he make a good US President...
"These white folks are no worse. In fact, I actually like the white folks' stance better - at least they're asking Obama to identify with ALL of what he is, instead of demanding that he identify of SOLELY with them."
Uhh...that's not a good thing, that's WORSE. Try reading this phrase over again using a few key substitutions:
...In fact, I actually like the French folk's stance better - at least they're asking Franscois to identify with ALL of what he is, instead of demanding that he identify SOLELY with them.
You don't see a problem with that? Can you imagine France ever taking that kind of political stand? No, of course not. For a good reason.
France doesn't believe in demoting people to non-french status. At least not officially.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Wed 13 Aug 2008 11:59 Post subject:
ImBack wrote:
Uhh...that's not a good thing, that's WORSE. Try reading this phrase over again using a few key substitutions:
...In fact, I actually like the French folk's stance better - at least they're asking Franscois to identify with ALL of what he is, instead of demanding that he identify SOLELY with them.
You don't see a problem with that? Can you imagine France ever taking that kind of political stand? No, of course not. For a good reason.
France doesn't believe in demoting people to non-french status. At least not officially.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever read here. You're saying that it would be GOOD for whites to reverse one-drop Obama.
So it appears that you're a one-drop supporter. Because by saying that it's worse for whites to ask him to identify with all of his heritage (i.e., partly with them) than it is for blacks to demand that Obama identify solely with them (i.e., one-dropping him), is just plain sick. I think you're in a for a beating when people see what you just wrote.
Last edited by Richard Miller on Wed 13 Aug 2008 13:46; edited 1 time in total
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
