Posted: Tue 23 Jun 2009 16:24 Post subject: Are You Black; Black Enough; and Who Decides?
The author again appears to be off in terms of his comments about slavery-era racial classification. But can someone verify the accuracy of his comments regarding Homer Plessy/the Supreme Court case?
Are You Black; Black Enough; and Who Decides?
PoliticalArticles.Net
Posted on 17 June 2009
By Robert Taylor
In the wake of the claims of Tiger Woods and the election of a mixed race but Black president, a question has been raised in black internet chat rooms around the country as to whether there is a legal or biological definition of who is black.
Actually, there is no law operable today which defines what percentage of “black blood” makes one black. The oft-repeated notion that one drop of black blood makes one black is a cultural definition which has neither a legal nor biological foundation.
The history of the notion can be traced to slavery and the period right after slavery called Reconstruction. Originally, in a bid to stop slaves who had been fathered by white slave owners and overseers from claiming freedom, property rights or possible inheritance, several Southern sates passed laws that in effect defined a black person as anyone with any “discernible” amount of “colored” or “African” blood.
But after slavery ended in 1865, these laws began to either die a natural death or were actually repealed during Reconstruction. The controversy which brought the race definition issue back up again was the infamous 1896 U.S. Supreme Court “separate but equal” decision in Plessy v. Ferguson.
Our high school history classes and Black History Month presentations have given us a distorted idea of who Plessy was and what he was about. We have generally been led to believe that Plessy was a black man arguing that blacks should be allowed the same accommodations as whites. This is not true. Plessy was actually a light skinned black man arguing that “he” should be given the same accommodations as whites because he had “7/8 Caucasian and only 1/8 African” blood. Thus, he argued that he should not be treated as “black” under an 1890 Louisiana law requiring blacks and whites be seated in separate railway cars.
It was the Supreme Court which largely ignored Plessy’s “I am not a negro” argument and told him if he did not think he was black he would have to go back to Louisiana and argue that issue on the state level. The Court then went forward and assumed Plessy to be black and rendered its decision saying a state was within its rights to mandate separate accommodations for blacks in order to keep the races apart.
Thus, the net result of the Plessy v. Ferguson decision was two-fold: It legalized the racist “separate but equal” doctrine AND it left an attitude or mood within the nation that the highest court in the land considered all “blacks” - no matter how light in complexion or how absent of African features - to be black. This cultural attitude stuck. Although technically the Supreme Court never ruled on Plessy’s contention that he should be treated as a white man because he had been accepted as white in the Louisiana community in which he lived and because his “African blood was not discernible.”
Nevertheless, the ruling helped to foster the notion that the government considered you black if you had just one drop of “black blood.” But, down to this very day, there is no law operable defining what makes one black, or white for that matter. It is basically a socio-cultural attitude based in major measure on how a person looks.
Simply put, in America, if you “look” in anyway black, you “are” black. That is not law. That is not science. It just is - a practical reality. Thus Tiger Woods’ mother may be from Thailand and Tiger may object to being called black. But it does not make a practical difference.
Further, it may be too late in history as well as potentially dangerous to be tampering with the socio-cultural definition of blackness even though the definition is a product of slavery. When the Census Bureau decided a few years ago to include a category called “mixed race” in the census, many people rightfully saw it as potentially divisive, asking what practical good does the “mixed race” category serve, but to further divide people along largely artificial lines.
Finally, if one just has to ask the question, the real question should not be “who is black” but instead “who is white.” The scientific theories of Evolution and “Out of Africa” are very clear: There is only one “race” on the planet Earth and it had its origin in East Africa (around present-day Ethiopia) and then spread to all other parts of the world. Adapting to environmental conditions such as the degree of sunlight and developing in relative isolation, some groups evolved lighter skins and others evolved darker skins.
Thus technically every person on the planet - from the darkest skinned person in the Congo to the lightest skinned person in Sweden - is of African ancestry. In other words, like Plessy, we all have a degree of “African blood” whether “discernible” or not.
Therefore the answer to the question above is YOU decide if you are Black enough and whether you realize it or not that gives you tremendous power.
Posted: Tue 23 Jun 2009 18:20 Post subject: Re: Are You Black; Black Enough; and Who Decides?
HPChi wrote:
The author again appears to be off in terms of his comments about slavery-era racial classification. But can someone verify the accuracy of his comments regarding Homer Plessy/the Supreme Court case?
As you point out, Taylor's ignorance of the the laws of slavery is embarrassing. Everyone reading these words already knows that the law of partus sequitur ventrem ruled as long as slavery existed in North America. This law traced slavery through the maternal line, taking no notice of "race", continent of ancestral origin, phenotype, blood fraction, or anything else. Matrilineal descent, nothing more. Furthermore, those knowlegable of the topic know that the onus probandi (burden of proof) regarding matrilineal descent lay on the alleged slaveowner if the alleged slave had any discernible European ancestry. If you had any noticeable Euro ancestry, you were presumed to be free and the slaveowner had to prove the contrary--sort of a reverse one-drop rule.
Regarding Plessy, Taylor is better informed, but is still not completely accurate. Yes, Plessy was White in the sense of appearance, although he claimed to have 12 percent Afro ancestry. His ejection from the Whites-only railroad car was at his own insistence, in order to challenge the constiitutionality of segregation laws. (The RR conductor considered him White and was reluctant to eject him.) The event was deliberately set up (like Rosa Parks's bus thing) in order to challenge segregation.
The inaccuracy of his own "racial" classification was one of about a dozen points mentioned by his lawyers in challenging the law. But it was not the focus of any of their arguments. Instead, Plessy's arguments emphasized the rights of all A-As as citizens. Read the written decision of the Supreme Court.
Ironically, in light of Taylor's misunderstanding of the case, the justices were eager to rule on Plessy's personal "racial" classification. They wanted the chance to rule that he was White. But, as they wrote in their majority opinion: "Neither in the information nor plea was his particular race or color averred." Of course, the reason that "his particular race or color," was not averred is because the whole point of the case was to challenge segregation, not to let Plessy ride in the White RR cars. Plessy could have continued doing that for the rest of his life by simply remaining silent.
the article misstates the Plessy v. Ferguson decision. The High Court did not "compel" Octoroon Plessy to be "black." He insisted on it. The opinion shows the Court's vexation at Plessy for not even briefing the issue of Louisiana classifying him "colored." (Supra, 163 U.S. 537, 541, 548-549.)
In any event, the actual words of the Supreme Court justices are easily available, so no one needs to rely on Taylor's strange interpretation. I especially enjoy reading the prophetic (but disregarded) dissent by Justice Harlan.
Last edited by fwsweet on Wed 24 Jun 2009 02:43; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Wed 24 Jun 2009 02:04 Post subject: Are You Black; Black Enough; and Who Decides?
Frank, thanks for the information/clarification on Plessy.
On another note, something funny came to mind relating to Taylor’s, “Simply put, in America, if you ‘look’ in anyway black, you ‘are’ black.” I remember watching the NBA on TNT last year. Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith informed host Ernie Johnson that, on countless occasions, various African-Americans had asked them if Johnson was African-American. Johnson, who is White, kind of sat there not knowing what to say while Barkley and Smith laughed, then handed Johnson some book on being Black in America I think. Now when Johnson is out and about in public I doubt most people would give it much thought, seeing him as White. So I guess Johnson’s continual presence seated alongside Barkley and Smith and the ease with which the three often interact led some to start conceptualizing Johnson as AA – perhaps then looking more closely at his face and seeing what they wanted to see. Bottom line, this shows that “‘look’ in any way Black” can be quite subjective.
Posted: Wed 24 Jun 2009 04:59 Post subject: Re: Are You Black; Black Enough; and Who Decides?
HPChi wrote:
...Bottom line, this shows that “‘look’ in any way Black” can be quite subjective.
I'll say! Good story. Thanks.
You know, this entire group should get together and have a cookout some day. After a couple of beers, I bet that everyone here can tell a story of "mistaken identity."
Posted: Thu 25 Jun 2009 14:43 Post subject: Re: Are You Black; Black Enough; and Who Decides?
HPChi wrote:
The author again appears to be off in terms of his comments about slavery-era racial classification. But can someone verify the accuracy of his comments regarding Homer Plessy/the Supreme Court case?
Are You Black; Black Enough; and Who Decides?
PoliticalArticles.Net
Posted on 17 June 2009
By Robert Taylor
In the wake of the claims of Tiger Woods and the election of a mixed race but Black president, a question has been raised in black internet chat rooms around the country as to whether there is a legal or biological definition of who is black.
Actually, there is no law operable today which defines what percentage of “black blood” makes one black. The oft-repeated notion that one drop of black blood makes one black is a cultural definition which has neither a legal nor biological foundation.
The history of the notion can be traced to slavery and the period right after slavery called Reconstruction. Originally, in a bid to stop slaves who had been fathered by white slave owners and overseers from claiming freedom, property rights or possible inheritance, several Southern sates passed laws that in effect defined a black person as anyone with any “discernible” amount of “colored” or “African” blood.
But after slavery ended in 1865, these laws began to either die a natural death or were actually repealed during Reconstruction. The controversy which brought the race definition issue back up again was the infamous 1896 U.S. Supreme Court “separate but equal” decision in Plessy v. Ferguson.
Our high school history classes and Black History Month presentations have given us a distorted idea of who Plessy was and what he was about. We have generally been led to believe that Plessy was a black man arguing that blacks should be allowed the same accommodations as whites. This is not true. Plessy was actually a light skinned black man arguing that “he” should be given the same accommodations as whites because he had “7/8 Caucasian and only 1/8 African” blood. Thus, he argued that he should not be treated as “black” under an 1890 Louisiana law requiring blacks and whites be seated in separate railway cars.
It was the Supreme Court which largely ignored Plessy’s “I am not a negro” argument and told him if he did not think he was black he would have to go back to Louisiana and argue that issue on the state level. The Court then went forward and assumed Plessy to be black and rendered its decision saying a state was within its rights to mandate separate accommodations for blacks in order to keep the races apart.
Thus, the net result of the Plessy v. Ferguson decision was two-fold: It legalized the racist “separate but equal” doctrine AND it left an attitude or mood within the nation that the highest court in the land considered all “blacks” - no matter how light in complexion or how absent of African features - to be black. This cultural attitude stuck. Although technically the Supreme Court never ruled on Plessy’s contention that he should be treated as a white man because he had been accepted as white in the Louisiana community in which he lived and because his “African blood was not discernible.”
Nevertheless, the ruling helped to foster the notion that the government considered you black if you had just one drop of “black blood.” But, down to this very day, there is no law operable defining what makes one black, or white for that matter. It is basically a socio-cultural attitude based in major measure on how a person looks.
Simply put, in America, if you “look” in anyway black, you “are” black. That is not law. That is not science. It just is - a practical reality. Thus Tiger Woods’ mother may be from Thailand and Tiger may object to being called black. But it does not make a practical difference.
Further, it may be too late in history as well as potentially dangerous to be tampering with the socio-cultural definition of blackness even though the definition is a product of slavery. When the Census Bureau decided a few years ago to include a category called “mixed race” in the census, many people rightfully saw it as potentially divisive, asking what practical good does the “mixed race” category serve, but to further divide people along largely artificial lines.
Finally, if one just has to ask the question, the real question should not be “who is black” but instead “who is white.” The scientific theories of Evolution and “Out of Africa” are very clear: There is only one “race” on the planet Earth and it had its origin in East Africa (around present-day Ethiopia) and then spread to all other parts of the world. Adapting to environmental conditions such as the degree of sunlight and developing in relative isolation, some groups evolved lighter skins and others evolved darker skins.
Thus technically every person on the planet - from the darkest skinned person in the Congo to the lightest skinned person in Sweden - is of African ancestry. In other words, like Plessy, we all have a degree of “African blood” whether “discernible” or not.
Therefore the answer to the question above is YOU decide if you are Black enough and whether you realize it or not that gives you tremendous power.
If Tiger Woods is doomed to be "black" because of his looks, how does Taylor explain Vijay Singh, who's skin color is far darker than Tiger's? Sonia Sotomayor, due to her Puerto Rican ancestry, would be proclaimed the FIRST WOMAN OF AFRICAN DESCENT to be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court IF she were of Anglo or Creole heritage. If she were Anglo or Creole, too many black Americans would take delight in telling her that she is a "light-skinned black" or "looks black" or could never "pass." There seem to be certain unwritten rules about "race" that "educated" Americans learn to follow. One is to dutifully recite the "one drop rule" as socially real and binding while failing to mention it has no force of law AND nearly all Hispanics and Arabs would be "black" IF "white" society were truly interested in enforcing the ODR.
Posted: Thu 25 Jun 2009 14:58 Post subject: black opposition to any "mixed race" category
Robert Taylor wrote:
Quote:
Further, it may be too late in history as well as potentially dangerous to be tampering with the socio-cultural definition of blackness even though the definition is a product of slavery. When the Census Bureau decided a few years ago to include a category called “mixed race” in the census, many people rightfully saw it as potentially divisive, asking what practical good does the “mixed race” category serve, but to further divide people along largely artificial lines.
Black elites seem to be engaged in a conscious effort to rewrite the history of the Multiracial Movement. They are trying to give the impression that white elites (especially Republicans) just made a decision to created a "mixed category" (which "check all that apply" is not) in order to "divide" the population (especially "blacks"). I have seen this in many articles and books. A casual reader would have no idea that mixed people and their relatives organized and fought for recognition.
Here's an example of what I mean in a new book of "black" propaganda published by a university press. Google "Powell" or "Byrd." He sure doesn't like Charles and me.
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 {Posts: 300 } Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posted: Thu 25 Jun 2009 23:06 Post subject: Re: Are You Black; Black Enough; and Who Decides?
Powell wrote:
HPChi wrote:
The author again appears to be off in terms of his comments about slavery-era racial classification. But can someone verify the accuracy of his comments regarding Homer Plessy/the Supreme Court case?
Are You Black; Black Enough; and Who Decides?
PoliticalArticles.Net
Posted on 17 June 2009
By Robert Taylor
In the wake of the claims of Tiger Woods and the election of a mixed race but Black president, a question has been raised in black internet chat rooms around the country as to whether there is a legal or biological definition of who is black.
Actually, there is no law operable today which defines what percentage of “black blood” makes one black. The oft-repeated notion that one drop of black blood makes one black is a cultural definition which has neither a legal nor biological foundation.
The history of the notion can be traced to slavery and the period right after slavery called Reconstruction. Originally, in a bid to stop slaves who had been fathered by white slave owners and overseers from claiming freedom, property rights or possible inheritance, several Southern sates passed laws that in effect defined a black person as anyone with any “discernible” amount of “colored” or “African” blood.
But after slavery ended in 1865, these laws began to either die a natural death or were actually repealed during Reconstruction. The controversy which brought the race definition issue back up again was the infamous 1896 U.S. Supreme Court “separate but equal” decision in Plessy v. Ferguson.
Our high school history classes and Black History Month presentations have given us a distorted idea of who Plessy was and what he was about. We have generally been led to believe that Plessy was a black man arguing that blacks should be allowed the same accommodations as whites. This is not true. Plessy was actually a light skinned black man arguing that “he” should be given the same accommodations as whites because he had “7/8 Caucasian and only 1/8 African” blood. Thus, he argued that he should not be treated as “black” under an 1890 Louisiana law requiring blacks and whites be seated in separate railway cars.
It was the Supreme Court which largely ignored Plessy’s “I am not a negro” argument and told him if he did not think he was black he would have to go back to Louisiana and argue that issue on the state level. The Court then went forward and assumed Plessy to be black and rendered its decision saying a state was within its rights to mandate separate accommodations for blacks in order to keep the races apart.
Thus, the net result of the Plessy v. Ferguson decision was two-fold: It legalized the racist “separate but equal” doctrine AND it left an attitude or mood within the nation that the highest court in the land considered all “blacks” - no matter how light in complexion or how absent of African features - to be black. This cultural attitude stuck. Although technically the Supreme Court never ruled on Plessy’s contention that he should be treated as a white man because he had been accepted as white in the Louisiana community in which he lived and because his “African blood was not discernible.”
Nevertheless, the ruling helped to foster the notion that the government considered you black if you had just one drop of “black blood.” But, down to this very day, there is no law operable defining what makes one black, or white for that matter. It is basically a socio-cultural attitude based in major measure on how a person looks.
Simply put, in America, if you “look” in anyway black, you “are” black. That is not law. That is not science. It just is - a practical reality. Thus Tiger Woods’ mother may be from Thailand and Tiger may object to being called black. But it does not make a practical difference.
Further, it may be too late in history as well as potentially dangerous to be tampering with the socio-cultural definition of blackness even though the definition is a product of slavery. When the Census Bureau decided a few years ago to include a category called “mixed race” in the census, many people rightfully saw it as potentially divisive, asking what practical good does the “mixed race” category serve, but to further divide people along largely artificial lines.
Finally, if one just has to ask the question, the real question should not be “who is black” but instead “who is white.” The scientific theories of Evolution and “Out of Africa” are very clear: There is only one “race” on the planet Earth and it had its origin in East Africa (around present-day Ethiopia) and then spread to all other parts of the world. Adapting to environmental conditions such as the degree of sunlight and developing in relative isolation, some groups evolved lighter skins and others evolved darker skins.
Thus technically every person on the planet - from the darkest skinned person in the Congo to the lightest skinned person in Sweden - is of African ancestry. In other words, like Plessy, we all have a degree of “African blood” whether “discernible” or not.
Therefore the answer to the question above is YOU decide if you are Black enough and whether you realize it or not that gives you tremendous power.
If Tiger Woods is doomed to be "black" because of his looks, how does Taylor explain Vijay Singh, who's skin color is far darker than Tiger's? Sonia Sotomayor, due to her Puerto Rican ancestry, would be proclaimed the FIRST WOMAN OF AFRICAN DESCENT to be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court IF she were of Anglo or Creole heritage. If she were Anglo or Creole, too many black Americans would take delight in telling her that she is a "light-skinned black" or "looks black" or could never "pass." There seem to be certain unwritten rules about "race" that "educated" Americans learn to follow. One is to dutifully recite the "one drop rule" as socially real and binding while failing to mention it has no force of law AND nearly all Hispanics and Arabs would be "black" IF "white" society were truly interested in enforcing the ODR.
You're missing a crucial point.
When someone asks about your ethnic identity, part of what they're asking is "Who are your relatives?"
For most of human history this has been one of the most important things you could ask about a person. It's still arguably the most important question you can ask about a person in the world outside of the industrialized West. The extended family was and is the social safety net and enforcer of justice.
Another way to phrase this is, "I don't care how you look, do you have family allegiances (for most of human history the strongest alliances) to members of the black American ethnic group?"
That's why my little blue eyed, beige colored cousin will in all likelihood, identify, and be identified, as black, even though she doesn't have all that much African ancestry. She's only a little black, and the US is the only country where she could conceivably be called black, but her extended family is for the most part African ancestry.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
