Posted: Sun 10 Apr 2005 17:35 Post subject: Mére Delille's Canonisation
Got this from Marion Fereira and thought you might find it of interest.
My love to you all
Susanne
Associates for the Preservation of Creole Cultural Heritage, Inc.
Post Office Box 43313
Los Angeles, CA 90043
(323) 299-5383
April 6, 2005
Sisters of the Holy Family Motherhouse
6901 Chef Menteur Highway
New Orleans, LA 70126-5215
ATT: Sr. Sylvia Thibodeaux, SSF
Superior General
Dear Sr. Thibodeau:
Think you for your strenuous efforts to edify me on who Mother Henriette Delille is ethnically. But with all due respect to you, I must say that I need no historian to educate me about my own people. I am 79 years of age, an 8th Generation Cane River descendant as well as a descendant of the early Colonial Creoles, and I have spent the major portion of my life researching my own Creole ancestry. This is why I know that at the time Henriette performed her acts of servitude to the slaves, the poor, the children and the elderly, she was also considered to be a Creole of Color as well. Whether "Creole" is accepted as a race is not my concern. To mis-identify her and disenfranchise the Creole people who existed in the past and those who are still living today, is my major concern.
I know all too well that a Creole has African, European and Native American ancestry. I am embracing all of these when I continue to identify myself as a Creole as well as Mother Henriette Delille. These people existed during the Colonial period of the French Louisiana Territory and thereafter and are not extinct like the dinosaurs and will not be suppressed by those who choose only to embrace African-American, choose to pass for whatever or identify only as Native American. Creoles of Color during the Colonial French Louisiana Territory had a distinct culture and place in history just like many other cultures who have various cultural identities. By identifying Mother Delille as Just and Only African-American is ignoring her unique history and heritage, the same one that I hold dear.
It was with extreme shock that I experienced reading the 3 pages you wrote attempting to explain why your Order,, along with Archbishop Alfred Hughes, feels that Henriette Delille should be canonized as "Just and Only" the First Native Born African-American Saint of the United States of America instead of as the First Native Born Creole-American Saint in America, when in truth and in fact her ancestry is also comprised of , French, Spanish and Italian ancestry. Especially your coming from a noted family of the Creole society.who have been considered Creole from day one in that history.
You say that all of the explanation you gave concerning the uncomplimentary status of the Free People of Color (and Creoles, if you will) was written by the biographer, Cyprian Davis, for Henriette Delille. Upon reading all of your very naive statements, it is apparent that Mr. Davis has not really done thorough research on the Louisiana Creoles who were the descendants of the French and Spanish natives of the French Louisiana Territory. In their day and time, and also Henriette Delille's (1812 to 1862) there was a tri-parte society in which whites, free people of color (Creoles) and Africans (free and enslaved) were separated by the Code Noir Laws of 1724. And at that time, it was not uncomplimentary to be in the category of Free People of Color, since they had more freedom and were permitted to own property, sue in courts and , own businesses and had considerable wealth. If that was uncomplimentary, then apparently being a slave or freed slave, in your mind's eyes, was a more complimentary status.
It was only when the white people of the Southern states flooded Louisiana with their presence that they themselves decided to disenfranchise the French and Creoles of their language and culture since they were jealous of them because they themselves had backwoods culture and could not understand the French language which they spoke.
If it is because the majority of your nuns at the present time identify as "African-Americans", and feel that Henriette Delille must reflect their culture and identity, at the loss of her own, in her canonization as a saint, then I would suggest that they go back in time and attempt to find a fully Native Born African-American or Negro or black person if you will, who did as much as Henriette Delille to help the slaves, the poor and the elderly. But of course that is only wishful thinking, since there were no Negroes or freed slaves that were free at that time who were able to accomplish as much as did Henriette Delille.
You gave the qualities of a person who would be eligible to be placed up for sainthood, and Henriette Delille passed all of the tests. But those eligibility qualities did not state that her ethnic identity should be anything other than what she was at the time she passed all of those tests. Her being an African-American was not one of the eligibility requirements, even though she did administer to slaves, free people of color, the poor and the elderly. For the major portion of her founded Order, it was only the three Creoles of Color who were in the Order, to wit, Juliette Gaudin and Josephine Charles along with Henriette Delille. For an example,- Sr. Katherine Drexel administered to African-Americans, and Native American Indians even though she had neither of their ancestry. Did that qualify her to be anything other than what she was - a Caucasian American?. Did that make her an African-American or a Native American? Positively not. Throughout her whole process of sainthood canonization, not once was her ethnicity given. Was that because they felt that her white face told the story? In that instance, why shouldn't Henriette Delille's also pale face tell her story without being singled out as "Just and Only African-American? Katherine Drexel perhaps was the descendant of Irish, German or whatever European descendants. Was that ever discussed throughout her whole canonization process? Of course not!!!!
If being of multiracial origin in the days that Henriette Delille lived was uncomplimentary, why was it that she was able to do all that she did in her time of life? Why was it that her Order was split at one time when the Order would not agree to accept a newly freed slave as a novitiate prior to 1865? And why did her Order consist of only free women of color at the time - to wit, Gaudin and Charles? The black nuns pictured in Cyprian Davis's book on Henriette Delille were only the ones who were permitted to join after 1865 and the Emanicpation Proclamation which freed all slaves. Where and who were the ones prior thereto?
Why is it that you state in your letter that it was doubtful as to who Henriette's father was?. When it was in notarial records that Jean Delille, her brother was the son of Jean Baptiste Delille Sarpy. It was also noted in Davis' book that Felix Delille, Jean Delille's brother, was a close associate of Henriette's family. This would not have occurred if it had been ascertained that Marie Diaz's children were not descendants of Jean Baptiste Delille Sarpy.
Please refer to your paragraph III in which you refer to "Laws which sought to limit the rights of non-white persons weighed upon all people of African descent, no matter what the complexion" sub-title B. In Cyprian Davis's book on Mother Delille, he specifically referred to the Delille family as being considered Creoles of Color. Also there is a notarial record of Cecille Bonille, the half-sister of Henriette, in which she refers to herself as being a Creole woman of color. So why would you quote James Dorman in his book "Creoles of Color of the Gulf South" in which he states that Creoles of Color has no specific meaning? If he had done his homework, as well as Cyprian Davis, they would both have read the book of Garcilosa de la Vega entitled the history of Peru, in which he stated that the people of the Spanish West Indies had decided to call themselves "Criollo" (in French the word was Creole) because they had become so mixed with the East Indian, African and Spanish, that it was uncertain where the African, East Indian or Spanish ancestry had began or ended..
It is interesting to note that in Cyprian Davis's book on Mother Delille, when he discussed The Code Noir Law (see Appendix A on Page 86) that he only spoke of the laws covering the slaves. He omitted focussing on the laws covering the Free People of Color or Creoles of Color, in which the laws forbade Creoles to marry either whites or blacks and other laws that referred to Free People of Color. Since the book was about Henriette Delille, a Free Person of Color, why would he omit these laws?
On Pages 7 & 8 of Chapter One, Davis mentions Cecile Bonille, Henriette's half-sister, and her Last Will and Testament written in 1841. She describes herself as "Cecile Bonille, a Creole of New Orleans", Even Cyprian Davis, himself, stated "We learn a great deal about the family of Henriette from the information supplied in Cecile's Last Will and Testament drawn up in 1841, five months before she died."
And by the way, if God is not considering Mother Delille's race and only her acts of holiness, then why are you and the Archbishop making such a big deal by chosing to identify her by only one part of her ancestry? Why not just focus on her sainthood and leave race out of it if the truth about her whole heritage is not being claimed?
You, the Archbishop, as well as I know what happened to Creoles of Color and African-American during the Jim Crow periods in America, wherein we were all discriminated aainst in the Catholic Churches by the white people. Now you are using that same Jim Crow tactics by inciting African-Americans to be part of it against the Creoles of Color. Now you are helping the white people to continue another form of bigotry because of racial politics and financial gain. I understand your tactics but however I am different from you in that I am a lay person so I can speak freely. You, as Catholics, are again closing your eyes to a group of people, Creoles, who have been part and parcel of this same Catholic religion for over 200 years and have supported the Catholic church with their devotion and finances.
It is with deep sorrow that I learned of Pope John Paul II's death this week. However it is with deeper sorrow that with all of his powers as the vicar of the Roman Catholic Religion in the world that he, although he has canonized some 400 or more saints and some 400 or more beatifications, as well as the Vatican's Sainthood Commission, cannot look into Mother Henriette Delille's history and identify her as the Native Born Creole American that she was when she lived but must go along with the fabrications which you nuns and the Archbishop Alfred Hughes have contrived.
Written with the Most Sincerety,I am
Mrs. Marion I. Ferreira, Founder and Director of
The Association for the Preservation of Creole Cultural Heritage, Inc.
cc: Archbishop AlfredHughes
Vatican Sainthood Commission
Creole Heritage Center, Northwestern University, Natchitoches, La
Interracial Voice Headquarters
The above just came in from Susanne, who is recovering from two strokes. She says that she is still weak, and that typing "involves a tremendous effort." She gets around after a fashion -- short walks etc. -- but is still not ín very good shape. Mary Lee and I are praying for her.
Those who are new to Marion Ferreira's fight against the Catholic Church's juggernaut campaign to canonise Henriette Delille as a "black" woman will find the details in my essay, Features of Today's One-Drop Rule. The essay references several Interracial Voice articles that give even more detail.
In a nutshell, the Church decided that canonising the first African-American saint would resonate with the Black community. Incredibly, they chose for this purpose a compassionate and holy Colored Creole woman of antebellum Louisiana who, by the law and custom of the time was anything but Black. This has distressed and horrified her family and the Colored Creole community who, to this day, reject the U.S. binary "race" notion (as do Hispanics and the many triracial maroon communities of the Southeast). They also strongly reject demands that they must join the African-American ethnic group, like it or not.
Mrs. Ferreira and other Creole leaders have made their distress clear to the Church. Sadly, the bishops' and Vatican's response suggests that they are aware that this is a cynical falsification of history, but choose to carry it through because, apparently, in the eyes of Holy Mother Church, the political gains to be reaped by catering to the African-American community justifies a lie that cruelly wounds thousands of Creole families.
On another topic, I understand that Cardinal Bernard Law has been chosen to celebrate the funeral mass for the late pope. He may be in the front running to become the next pope. It is a sad day for the Church.
Posted: Mon 11 Apr 2005 21:37 Post subject: Henriette Delille
If Mother Delille hasd been "Hispanic," with the same amout or more of
African ancestry, no one would dare to claim her as "African American."
That is because Hispanics are:
1) Powerful enough to resist any attempt at the "ethnic rape" that have
been so successful with the Creoles.
2) Pretty much in solidarity that they do NOT want to be "black," or
"Afrcan American" while Creoles are divided. For every Creole who says that "I am not black," some relative can be found to say that he or she IS "black." This tactic was used against Susie Phipps and Anatole Broyard. Hispanics rarely have to deal with this nonsense.
The main weapon I can see to use against the "one drop" mafia is
ridicule. Black and black-identified folks who are fanatical about claiming every drop of white or other nonblack "blood" they can get their mitts on are cursed with an inferiority complex which makes them fearful that they MAY BE genetically "inferior" and that more and more European genes are necessary to "save" them from this hypothetical fate.
If Mother Delille hasd been "Hispanic," with the same amout or more of African ancestry, no one would dare to claim her as "African American." That is because Hispanics [(paraphrased) have both political power and internal solidarity.]
I think that solidarity has had a greater impact than political power, because Hispanics are politically weaker than Blacks or Whites, both of whom want to split the Hispanics so that each of these two traditional "races" can devour its demographic share of the corpse.
This is something that I have been thinking about lately as a possible book topic. As I mentioned to Gordon in another thread, many mixed groups (Lumbees, Seminoles, Jackson Whites) maintained solidarity and donned a Native American self-identity. Others (Melungeons) maintained solidarity and adopted a White self-identity. I heard of one group that maintained solidarity but see themselves as Black. But most groups, I suspect, slowly dissolved into two polarized factions, one Black and one White (SC mulatto elite, LA and AL gens de couleur libre), or vanished altogether.
My specific interest is why most such groups chose to become Indian, a few chose to be White, and at least one chose Blackness. What forces drove their choices? Was it one person's vision and leaderhip? Was it extermal pressures (a.k.a. Jim Crow)? Or was it some sort of economic or genetic determinism internal to each community? There have been comparative studies of assimilation and ethnicity, of course, but I don't know of any that focus on each group's choice of "race."
Nevertheless, a book cannot begin to address the self-identity choices of the few such groups that continue to survive intact unless it first touches upon how most such groups dissolved and vanished into America's odd two-caste system.
Getting back to the topic at hand: The courts and maintream society have applied fierce pressure to split the gens de couleur libre into White and Black factions starting with Nathaniel Banks's military rule of Louisiana during the Civil war. The pressure to split intensified horrifically (with lynchings) at the start of Jim Crow. By and large, the splitting of this group into two hostile factions, one seeing itself as White and one as Black, has succeed. There are a few die-hards (Ferreira, Susanne) and many sympathetic observers (Dominguez) who continue to fight for solidarity, but it is an uphill struggle. As A.D. said, the reason why such efforts as Ferreira's usually fail is that other modern-day Creoles, with equal right to claim spokesmanship of the gens de couleur libre, insist that they are utterly Black, and always have been. (Falsification of history is traditional, even expected, in such debates.)
I suspect that, ultimately, the difference between the Creoles and the Hispanics is merely a matter of time. Both Javier and I have nightmares about this, but I see evidence that the children of Hispanics living in the United States are starting to split into those same two factions under unrelenting indoctrination by teachers, extracurricular leaders, and the authorities. For 142 years now, racialist American society has been hammering on the Creoles to split in two. The deed is done. The hammering on the Hispanics has only been going on for about 55 years. The splitting is still underway.
Posted: Tue 12 Apr 2005 17:13 Post subject: What determines the \"black\" versus \"white\" choice?
I have given a great deal of thought to this subject. The mixed communities who chose to be "white" en masse enjoyed economic independence from blacks. Melungeons, Redbones, etc. tended to be independent farmers or otherwise free of any economic dependence on blacks. The "Mulatto Elite" who presented themselves as a superior variety of "Negro" tended to be professionals: teachers, ministers, professors, undertakers, etc. With Jim Crow destroying their access to white customers and clients, they were forced to cater solely to "Negroes." Since they were economically dependent on the goodwill of blacks, they swallowed their pride and accepted the "Negro" label.
We should also remember that Reconstruction created an environment in which educated mulattoes, quadroons, etc. saw a path to political power via a combination of black votes and Confederate disenfranchisement. Even former "free people of color" who were proud of their white ancestry were willing to appeal to black voters as members of "the race" in opposition to Southern "whites" as a group. When Confederate veterans regained the vote and the federal government abandoned the enforcement of "black" rights, Mulatto Elites were the professionals who staffed "Negro" colleges, schools, and nearly all professional services that catered to the inferior caste. One might say that their higher class status and education worked against them.
I am reminded of Brewton Barry's book, Almost White, in which he describes the poverty and poor "third" schools that "mestizos" (his word) were willing to endure to avoid the "Negro" label. Blacks and Mulatto Elites liked to ridicule them for their efforts, but such efforts really helped their descendants, who often had the option of being both "white" AND professional. I'm reminded of some Scandinavian-American friends of mine who now say that their grandpas should have stuck it out in then poverty-stricken Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc. because their descendants would now enjoy all that that welfare state security.
I would say that "Mulatto Elites" never lost their cultural differences. There is a reason why you don't see them in the ghettos or prisons like the "real blacks" who are descendants of field slaves (not whites and slave or free concubines). There is a reason why nearly everyone (white, black or otherwise) reacts with some open-mouthed shock when meeting a person of European phenotype who claims to be "black."
Latinos destroy themselves, not Black or White Americans. Afro-Americans are NOT raising Cuban American babies. White Americans are also not the mothers and fathers (for the most part) of Mexican and Puerto Rican immigrants that are coming to this country. Strangers are not deciding these people's racial identities its them themselves.
Their unity IS being destroyed in my opinion by those in the group that want to be accepted as White! Nevermind that if there are White Hispanics that there must be a "race" for all non- White Hispanics........and so at last we are ending up with White Hispanics, Black Hispanics, Asian Hispanics, Indian Hispanics, and Multiracial Hispanics.
This situation alone shows how much real UNITY Latinos really have!!! For example NAACP and other Afro-Americans would have went crazy if anyone would have suggested the government divide and count the number of light skinned or dark skinned Blacks even if many of them would have been put in the "light skinned Black" group. Hispanics of course have not put up any real fight because many ACTUALLY WANTED to be seen as White and SEPERATE from other dark skinned Spanish speakers and had absolutely no problem with this new system.
Posted: Fri 22 Apr 2005 19:38 Post subject: Negroism as Catholicism: the case of Mother Delille
The "black" nun quoted above makes the incredible statement that Henriette Delille is being raised to sainthood merely because she didn't "pass for white." That tells you something about the Negro love of white genes. Everybody who consents to being a "white Negro" is a saint?!! So those who claim a white or mixed identity are what - diabolical?!!
She also assumes that a "descendant of slaves" automatically knows how to deal with slaves. 1) Everyone on earth is a descendant of slaves, since slavery has been omnipresent throughout human history. 2) The "black" nun implies that Mother Delille's compassion for slaves was merely a matter of blood calling to blood - a biological phenomenon. If she was merely following a biological imperative, then there is nothing holy about her helping slaves. Compassion is reduced to biological instinct. 3) By denying the fact that "free people of color" (especially those who were well-to-do) were far above both slaves and blacks in status and rights, Mother Delille's sacrifice is effectively denied. If she was "black" and not much more than a slave, why should she be honored for making no sacrifice?
I would suggest sending an open letter to the new Pope; send it to European and Canadian newspapers and don't limit yourself to Church bureaucracy.
If would be better for Mother Delille's sainthood to wait than to be dishonored with a false sainthood meant merely to indulge the inferiority complex of a few black-identified American religieux.
Posted: Fri 22 Apr 2005 20:52 Post subject: The Pope and Mother Delille
I don't mean appealing to the new Pope's morality or conscience (which, like most politicians, is based on power and control rather than the teachings of Jesus). I mean that the only chance of winning anything against the political power and inflated moral authority of American blacks is to embarrass them in front of "whites" and other nonblacks in general. The Multiracial Movement, while it failed to achieve a census category because of its own divisions, made "multiracial" and recognition of "mixed race" respectable where they had not been before. This was done by appealing to "whites" in general in spite of "black" and other "minority" opposition.
Posted: Sat 23 Apr 2005 02:14 Post subject: Mere Henriette Delille's Canonication\"
I agree with the statements made by A.D. Powell with the exception of her words that Creoles were "far above the blacks and slaves". I feel that the words should have been that er"Creoles were more fortunate than them since they happened to have had greater rights, opportunities and freedoms than the blacks and slaves. This explains it better since generally many African-Americans tend to feel and state that Creoles think they are "better than" rather than "different from them.
I have sent copies of both letters to the new Pope Benedict XVI and the Vatican Canonizaton Committee. However I don't expect any aid from them since I was informed by Pope John Paul II and the Committee that they had no jurisdiction over an archdiocese in these matters.
Mrs. Marion I. Ferreira, Director of Associates for the Preservation of Creole Cultural Heritage Redbino9@aol.com
I had the pleasure of meeting my first self identified Creole last Saturday.
We were discussing schools and she informed me during the conversation that she was from Lousiana and Creole. She then when on to say "in Lousiana one drop of Black blood makes you Black".
She also asked me if I'd seen "Feast of All Saints", which I had. So she then went on to explain that some Creoles look White, some look mixed and some look Black, but Creoles identified as Black/African-American.
She explained Creoles as the usual (Spanish, French, Native American, Black -of Haitian slaves) descent.
So after chatting with her I'll be leaning toward my statements about the Latino ethnicity! It is NOT Afro-Americans that are the cause of disunity! It seems like more of an internal division- ie some Creoles think they're better than other Creoles.
I had the pleasure of meeting my first self identified Creole last Saturday.
We were discussing schools and she informed me during the conversation that she was from Lousiana and Creole. She then when on to say "in Lousiana one drop of Black blood makes you Black".
This is an individual's opinion. No one person can speak for an "entire race" of people.
This is an individual's opinion. No one person can speak for an "entire race" of people.
I agree, of course, but I think that Girl's point was that some Creoles insist that all are Black, while others claim that some Creoles self-identify as simply "Creole," embracing all of their heritages. This goes back to a point that AD and I were hammering on a little white ago--what forces cause a mixed-ancestry ethnic group to come unglued and assimilate into the greater U.S. society, splitting into White and Black branches.
AD argued that the main factor seemed to be internal solidarity. Hispanics, for example are tenaciously fighting to remain a single monolithic ethnicity and resist being split into Black and White branches. (They may be losing the battle, but that is a different story.) Similarly, the Lumbees and Melungeons are apparently solid.
The Creoles, on the other hand, have split. They are no longer a single ethnic group solidly resistant to America's bizarre dichotomy. Instead, you can now find Creoles who see themselves as Black, who even see themselves as militant Black zealots, insisting that they have always been Black, and that the one-drop rule has always existed.
The question, it seems to me, is whether the internal splitting of the Creoles came about due to relentless 150-year hammering by the White community (I tend to lean this way), due to relentless 150-year hammering by the Black community (I think AD tends to lean this way), or due to some internal flaw that led them to split in two (I think that Girl leans this way).
I differ with Girl in a different point than the one Wortman pointed out. She wrote:
girlfromthenc wrote:
... some Creoles think they're better than other Creoles.
While this may be true in a socio-economic class sense, I doubt that it is true in the context of mixed heritage. Instead, I think that it is merely a traditional argument of Black zealots everywhere. They claim that anyone with a trace of African ancestry who refuses to self-identify as ethnically Black is doing so because he or she thinks he is "better than" Blacks. This is simply a version of the childish rant that attributes evil motives to anyone who disagrees with you.
Last edited by fwsweet on Mon 25 Apr 2005 19:53; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Mon 25 Apr 2005 15:00 Post subject: Creole self-definition
Frank said:
Quote:
The question, it seems to me, is whether the internal splitting of the Creoles came about due to relentless 150-year hammering by the White community (I tend to lean this way), due to relentless 150-year hammering by the Black community (I think AD tends to lean this way), or due to some internal flaw that led them to split in two (I think that Girl leans this way).
Actually, I think there is truth in all of that. Creoles, unlike Hispanics, had the added pressure of:
1) Being part of antebellum slave society and partial descendants of antebellum slaves. This made their degradation essential in the eyes of the elites who created "Jim Crow" segregation, so "miscegnation" could be presented as unnatural. Hispanics are also descended from African slaves, but they were not U.S. slaves.
2) Creoles were plagued by documentation in which tell-tale words such as "Free person of color" or "mulatto," etc. were used to describe ancestors. Such documentation exists for Hispanics, but it is all in Spanish-speaking countries.
3) Hispanics have homelands to advocate for them, whether the homeland is a sovereign nation like Mexico or a U.S. Commonwealth like Puerto Rico. When Napoleon sold Louisiana to the U.S., Creoles lost their political link to the mother country.
4) There are many anecdotes of white Southerners letting dark-skinned "foreigners" use "whites only" facilities. This practice seems to imply that the appearance of white purity was often more important than the reality.
5) Virginia Dominguez, in White by Definition, tells us that the Creoles faced direct pressure from both whites and blacks to abandon their separate identity. Frank has mentioned that his research shows that the standards for entering "white" schools were often higher than the standards for marrying a white as a white. Creoles were forced into educational institutions defined as "Negro" and Hispanics were not.
6) Now Melungeons, Lumbees, and other Southern mixed-race groups faced similar pressure. Why didn't they fold? It appears that their economic independence helped them. Educated mulatto elites, whether Creole or Anglo, were forced to depend on blacks as clients and customers since the Jim Crow system would not allow them to service whites. In Brewton Berry's Almost White, I was impressed at the willingness of many mixed race groups to get very aggressive with the supposedly all-powerful local whites. One Justice-of-the-Peace, for example, said that he no longer assumed he knew the "race" of couples appearing before him because so many darker Melungeons would get violent if anyone suggested that they were Negroes. On the other hand, he approvingly cited the docile behavior of perfectly white-appearing couples who "corrected" him and told him they were "colored" when there was nothing that would have suggested otherwise.
By the way, I remember reading somewhere that Irish Gaelic was effectively destroyed as the language of the majority of the Irish people because all education was limited to English. The choice is between education or ethnic solidarity. Berry noted how many "mestizo" Southerners accepted one-room third schools rather than go to the "Negro" school. Many Creoles went to private Catholic schools rather than attend "Negro" schools. While mulatto elites tended to laugh at the "pretensions" of the Melungeons, Lumbees, etc., their descendants have become white and usually middle-class.
... some Creoles think they're better than other Creoles.
While this may be true in a socio-economic class sense, I doubt that it is true in the context of mixed heritage. Instead, I think that it is merely a traditional argument of Black zealots everywhere. They claim that anyone with a trace of African ancestry who refuses to self-identify as ethnically Black is doing so because he or she thinks he is "better than" Blacks. This is simply a version of the childish rant that attributes evil motives to anyone who disagrees with you.
I stand by my statements even if its unpopular to mention colorism problems at a Multriacial site or of anyone who claims a Multiracial identity.
I think this girl truly DID see herself as a Creole first and foremost, however I also think she was under the realization that because of her brown skin and semi-kinky hair that few people would consider her anything less than "Black". And as I suggested earlier, most of the 'apperance pressure' this girl is probably under comes from fellow self identified Creoles like herself and NOT self identified Afro-Americans. I'm sure in order to remain non-Black (or a distinct & seperate ethnicity from the larger African American one), it is imparative that the community have the most European phenotype as possible. (Sadly) even at the cost of discriminating against and distanting themselves from darker skinned Creoles themselves (just like White Hispanics and the most fair skinned 'others' try desperately to do too).
And lastly, I have no idea WHY despite all the evidence(and articles) of racism and colorism in Latin America that you Frank simply refuse to believe that in many countries being "Black" is seen as "bad" even if you ARE "Black"/predominately African!!! By chance what are your suggestions as to WHY Puerto Rico (your native country) was 50% Black/ 50% White country in 1850 and today claims a 80% White and 10% Black population? Why is a White identity so overwhelmingly favored over a "Black" one in a population you yourself reported as having the same number of African and European ancestors if "Black" does NOT equal "Bad"?!
Are all journalist/reporters that have constantly reported the exact opposite of what you are saying all liars but you???
Its no secret that in just about every community known to man the light skin elite think of themselves as SUPERIOR to the darker skinned bottom even if they all go under the same "Hispanic" "Creole" or "East Indian" label. Am I suppose to believe Creoles are somehow some different species of man?? Next I'm suppose to believe colorism and poverty only exists in the Afro-American community.................
Posted: Wed 11 May 2005 02:22 Post subject: A.D. Powell Last Article on the One Drop Rule
In A.D Powell's last article she states that Creoles lost their link to the mother country which is France. However she should also note that our country was the French Louisiana Territory. Although it was sold to the US, we have never lost the fact that our ancestors were French people and as such, we are their French descendants, regardles of whether the territory was sold or lost by war. Marion Ferreira
Posted: Thu 12 May 2005 03:49 Post subject: response to Marion Ferreira
In response to Marion Ferreira, I'd like to clarify my statement regarding the Louisiana's Creoles' political divorce from France after the Louisiana Purchase by the United States.
Yes, Creoles cherished their cultural and family ties with France, and those who could afford it often sent their children to France for their education. However, the Louisiana Purchase meant that the Creoles lost the political protection of France. The American government of Louisiana was free to take more and more rights from Creoles (especially those classified as "of color"), both in the antebellum and post-Reconstruction periods.
Compare the Creole situation with Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, for example. They profit from the fact that their homelands are next to the United States and willing to protest if their compatriots are formally reduced to second-class citizens. During the 1930's, Mexico used its status as a sovereign nation to formally protest the Census Bureau's listing of Mexicans as a separate "race" from "whites." All Mexicans and other "Spanish-surnamed" people were then recorded as "white" regardless of color or phenotype. This does not mean that they were all treated as "white," but having "white" on your identification papers gave Hispanics and their descendants far more opportunities than those whose identification papers said "Negro," "Colored," or otherwise non-white.
I just watched a movie, The Courage to Love, about Henriette Delille just this afternoon on the ABC network. This is the first that I learned about her and found it very interesting and well done.http://www.tvguide.com/movies/courage-love/review/135825
Susanne - Even though this was posted about 2.5 years ago, I did find Marion Ferira's article very interesting and thank you for posting it. I hope you are doing well now.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
