Posted: Tue 07 Nov 2006 09:32 Post subject: The Myth Of the Light-Skinned Black
Whats this whole thing i hear in alot of american TV shows etc... referring to certain people as "Light-skinned Blacks".
A light-skinned Black person is a mixed race person basically. You don't really get Black people who randomly happen to be Light-skinned, just like you dont get random white people who happen to be brown-skinned. Look at Afrcian people. They are all pretty much Black and Black as the ace of spades whereas a lot of African-americans are lighter-skinned. this is not because they are randomly lighter-skinned its because they have white blood in them and are mixed race. Obviously a person is 1/2 white, 1/2 Black are gonna be in the middle of both in terms of colour.
Peple like Halle Berry, Alicia Keys, Leila Arcieri, Karyn parsons are all mixed race. they are not light-skinned Blacks. how has this tag come about??
Or how about this one: "Black people come in many different colors/shades." And when this comment is made it's referring to white skin, light skin, etc.
Both mymulatto and GermanChocolate are missing some key points.
Lightskinned Blacks (LSBs) are members of the multiracial Black American ethnic group. The ODR has guaranteed that Black people do indeed come in all colors. "Black" is not synonomous with "African," but it is synonomous with "of African descent." Many Black people with African ancestors have a European or Asian appearance, or some kind of intermediate look.
Also, admixture in African populations is not really relevant to or indicative of admixture in American populations. There is, however, phenotype variation in Africa that is not due to European or Asian admixture. It is a myth that all sub Saharan Africans are darkskinned with broad features and coiled hair even in cases where populations are not mixed with non-native populations. Please browse the related discussions in the Molecular Anthropology forum for more information.
Or how about this one: "Black people come in many different colors/shades." And when this comment is made it's referring to white skin, light skin, etc.
It's just another way to one drop people.
Theres no one dropism. Its not influenced or related to the "one drop rule" at all.
Its just a matter of fact expression, that reflects the reality of our (uniformly afro-american) families and communities. Not everybody is the same color, and its just the way it is.
My parents grew up telling me that "black people come in all diffferent colors" (which I could see in our family unit), and they were not lying to me.
Or how about this one: "Black people come in many different colors/shades." And when this comment is made it's referring to white skin, light skin, etc.
It's just another way to one drop people.
Theres no one dropism. Its not influenced or related to the "one drop rule" at all.
Its just a matter of fact expression, that reflects the reality of our (uniformly afro-american) families and communities. Not everybody is the same color, and its just the way it is.
My parents grew up telling me that "black people come in all diffferent colors" (which I could see in our family unit), and they were not lying to me.
Phil how can you say that the ODR has no influence or relation to the fact that Black people have various hues/phenotypes? What else could it be? It's certainly not random.
The statement is 100% accurate but that doesn't mean that the ODR had nothing to do with creating the conditions that made it so.
Phil how can you say that the ODR has no influence or relation to the fact that Black people have various hues/phenotypes?
... GermanChocolate, was implying that the agenda of the statement is to "one drop people", as if it is intended to impose blackness on multi-racial people. The statment is not about them, its about us.
The logic behind the statement and the implications of it, have nothing to do with the "one drop rule", or mixed people at all - as if to say "we're all mixed and one drop makes everybody black". It is just a remark about the reality of ourselves and our families (the black american family) which are multi-colored.
Quote:
What else could it be?
The statement is 100% accurate but that doesn't mean that the ODR had nothing to do with creating the conditions that made it so.
If you're implying that the the reason for this is because the ODR forced our ancestors into blackness at one point, then I doubt that also... I dont think there has ever been a point where people started calling themselves "black" out of compliance with the coersion of the ODR. I think rather that its just a natural construction that happened because we dont have the multi-ethnic experience that would facilitate a "mixed" identity and never have.
fsweet made a similar judgement before in another thread:
Demographically, the largest U.S. socio-political group of mixed Afro-European ancestry are 74 million Americans who check off “White” on the census, sadly ignorant of their own rich heritage. The second-largest group are those who check off “Black,” deliberately turning their backs on the obvious in order to retaliate for what they see as centuries of oppression inflicted by their White ancestors.
...implying that the afro-american group has knowledge of loving white forbears that we conciously deny by callign ourself "black" out of some stubborn hate for "white folks", or out of compliance with "one dropism".
The reality is that there is nobody to deny. How can we deny somebody that we are not aware of, and cant even name?? Theres no "other side" to a black family that we are chosing from, theres no connection to any white people, and there never has been (for most people).
Whats I think is more likely is that black families have been multi-colored, and black/negro-identified since emancipation - constructing the conception of blackness in various shades; making it more of a natural result of our experience, rather than a manifestation of the "one drop rule".
Phil how can you say that the ODR has no influence or relation to the fact that Black people have various hues/phenotypes?
... GermanChocolate, was implying that the agenda of the statement is to "one drop people", as if it is intended to impose blackness on multi-racial people. The statment is not about them, its about us.
The logic behind the statement and the implications of it, have nothing to do with the "one drop rule", or mixed people at all - as if to say "we're all mixed and one drop makes everybody black". It is just a remark about the reality of ourselves and our families (the black american family) which are multi-colored.
Quote:
What else could it be?
The statement is 100% accurate but that doesn't mean that the ODR had nothing to do with creating the conditions that made it so.
If you're implying that the the reason for this is because the ODR forced our ancestors into blackness at one point, then I doubt that also... I dont think there has ever been a point where people started calling themselves "black" out of compliance with the coersion of the ODR. I think rather that its just a natural construction that happened because we dont have the multi-ethnic experience that would facilitate a "mixed" identity and never have.
fsweet made a similar judgement before in another thread:
Demographically, the largest U.S. socio-political group of mixed Afro-European ancestry are 74 million Americans who check off “White” on the census, sadly ignorant of their own rich heritage. The second-largest group are those who check off “Black,” deliberately turning their backs on the obvious in order to retaliate for what they see as centuries of oppression inflicted by their White ancestors.
...implying that the afro-american group has knowledge of loving white forbears that we conciously deny by callign ourself "black" out of some stubborn hate for "white folks", or out of compliance with "one dropism".
The reality is that there is nobody to deny. How can we deny somebody that we are not aware of, and cant even name?? Theres no "other side" to a black family that we are chosing from, theres no connection to any white people, and there never has been (for most people).
Whats I think is more likely is that black families have been multi-colored, and black/negro-identified since emancipation - constructing the conception of blackness in various shades; making it more of a natural result of our experience, rather than a manifestation of the "one drop rule".
I have to agree with Phil. Most African-American families I know have members of different colors. They mention that they have something else but don't care since it doesn't affect their lives.
I also agree with Sagascend. The use of the word "black" is deceptive. The term African-American came into use because it was more inclusive, moving away from skin color and towards ethnicity.
This again makes more sense in corroborate data taht show the average AFrican-American has 18% Caucasian ancestry and 8 to 11% Native American ancestry. That's significant and explains the different phenotypes seen amongst African-Americans because it takes into account that most people are mixed-race.
Misunderstood yet another time, perhaps I need to be more clear, my apoloigies. I was agreeing with the fact that there are no light skinned "Blacks" or "African Americans", seeing that they are really mixed.
And yes, I understand that in Africa there are different colors/hues/skin tone. But without mixture, the skin tone wouldn't be extremely light, or white.
So therefore when someone says that "Blacks" or "African Americans" come in different colors and they say this meaning to include biracial people of any degree of mixture they are one dropping. That is what I do not like.
Misunderstood yet another time, perhaps I need to be more clear, my apoloigies. I was agreeing with the fact that there are no light skinned "Blacks" or "African Americans", seeing that they are really mixed.
And yes, I understand that in Africa there are different colors/hues/skin tone. But without mixture, the skin tone wouldn't be extremely light, or white.
So therefore when someone says that "Blacks" or "African Americans" come in different colors and they say this meaning to include biracial people of any degree of mixture they are one dropping. That is what I do not like.
What you meant was clear, it's just that there are good reasons to disagree with that point of view. LSBs and DSBs are mixed. The only reason that LSBs are singled out for mixture is because their mixture is more physically obvious to the racialized American eye. It is absolutely incorrect to say that Vanessa Williams, Arthur Ashe, Harold Ford Jr., and Black Americans who look like them are not Black. It is absolutely correct to say that they, like Denzel Washington, Chris Tucker, Whoopi Goldberg, and Oprah Winfrey are racially mixed Black people. Black people are Black because it is their ethnicity and culture. You are making a common error in assuming that darkskinned Black people are not mixed. The average Black American has 17-18% European ancestry. Some say that mixture is noticeable to the racialized eye at 20% plus.
Take a look at the Khoisan in South Africa. They are light-skinned people, lighter brown rather than the darker brown hues usually associated with sub Saharan Africans. This is not due to admixture.
If you're implying that the the reason for this is because the ODR forced our ancestors into blackness at one point, then I doubt that also... I dont think there has ever been a point where people started calling themselves "black" out of compliance with the coersion of the ODR. I think rather that its just a natural construction that happened because we dont have the multi-ethnic experience that would facilitate a "mixed" identity and never have.
There is nothing natural about cultural construction. Cultures are not natural in the sense that group identities are inevitable. They are shaped by social, geographical and environmental forces. The ODR was a big factor, some say the only factor other than white supremacy/racism, in shaping the Black ethnic group over time. As triguy said, "Black" is just one way of referring to the population of Afro-descended people in the U.S. We have been called colored, Negro, African, African American, etc.
Now if you are saying that, for the most part, this culture grew organically out of kinship ties and community rather than some kind of extortion/coercion then I agree. But - there are many cases of people who were moved over the color line into blackness, but whether it is relevant to their descendants now is another matter.
Phil345 wrote:
...implying that the afro-american group has knowledge of loving white forbears that we conciously deny by callign ourself "black" out of some stubborn hate for "white folks", or out of compliance with "one dropism".
What denial? You can only deny what you know. Many Black people do not know their full ancestry, they only suspect. Some willfully ignore or minimize White ancestry because it is too distant or perceived as a negative. Some have made a conscious choice to align themselves with the culture they grew up in or relate to, despite their appearance. I've met Black people who fit all of these stereotypes. And they're not all lightskinned.
Misunderstood yet another time, perhaps I need to be more clear, my apoloigies. I was agreeing with the fact that there are no light skinned "Blacks" or "African Americans", seeing that they are really mixed.
And yes, I understand that in Africa there are different colors/hues/skin tone. But without mixture, the skin tone wouldn't be extremely light, or white.
So therefore when someone says that "Blacks" or "African Americans" come in different colors and they say this meaning to include biracial people of any degree of mixture they are one dropping. That is what I do not like.
What you meant was clear, it's just that there are good reasons to disagree with that point of view. LSBs and DSBs are mixed. The only reason that LSBs are singled out for mixture is because their mixture is more physically obvious to the racialized American eye. It is absolutely incorrect to say that Vanessa Williams, Arthur Ashe, Harold Ford Jr., and Black Americans who look like them are not Black. It is absolutely correct to say that they, like Denzel Washington, Chris Tucker, Whoopi Goldberg, and Oprah Winfrey are racially mixed Black people. Black people are Black because it is their ethnicity and culture. You are making a common error in assuming that darkskinned Black people are not mixed. The average Black American has 17-18% European ancestry. Some say that mixture is noticeable to the racialized eye at 20% plus.
Take a look at the Khoisan in South Africa. They are light-skinned people, lighter brown rather than the darker brown hues usually associated with sub Saharan Africans. This is not due to admixture.
Hi, I'm new. I just drop in from time to time and finally signed up. Please forgive me in advance if I'm not a consistent poster.
I just wanted to add a few points to this particular post of Sagascend's:
It's actually interesting (to me at least) that anthropologists hypothesize that all humans are descended from the Khoisans. So, while some of us became darker and others lighter, etc., it's cool that everyone started out the same cinnamon color.
But I also wanted to pointed out a few other things
1) Although the majority of African-Americans have some racial mixture, not all of us do. For instance, when Whoopie Goldberg and Oprah Winfrey worked with Henry Louis Gates Jr. in his admixture/genealogy study, they discovered that they were both of 100% Sub-Saharan descent, as is T.D. Jakes. However, Chris Tucker did discover some Native American admixture. So, obviously some "dark skinned" blacks are mixed, while others are not. It's absolutely true that you can't assume someone's geneaolgy, admixture or identification by looks alone. That being said, it's pretty silly to insinuate that there isn't a wide gap in mixture percentages when (for lack of better words) comparing someone of hypo-African descent with olive skin, wavy brown hair and blue eyes to someone of hypo-African descent with chocolate colored skin, black afrocentric hair and black eyes.
2) The idea of a "Black" culture or ethnicity is striking to me, because this is what I believed for a long time - until I grew up and was exposed to a greater number of "Blacks." I found that their culture was way different from mine. Socio-economic factors play a big role in the Black community too. We don't all have the same culture. So, I would say it's socio-political issues and racial history that keep us bound together. Culturally, I don't feel very connected to the vast majority of Blacks. However, I know this is a socio-economic thing. There's been a Black upper-middle class with its good and bad points for a long time -- and most people denounce them as not being "Black." But who decides this? Whites are punk rockers, frat boys, guidos and everything else. But if you don't eat mac'n'cheese and do the electric slide at every family gathering you aren't Black?
Racial history that my family has passed down and the social pressures people who assume things about me based on appearance are the reasons why I feel a kinship to the Black race. But, logically, knowing my genealogy and phenotype - it is clear that I'm Multi-racial. I'm proud of my heritage, but socio-politically I do not hesitate to check the "Black box."
There was a few posts by another poster who identifies as biracial. I'm sorry I forgot her name. But one comment she made was something to the effect that she didn't know why she should feel any connection to multi-generationally mixed people who couldn't even name one white relative. I think it's important to note that there are many multi-generationally mixed people who can trace their genealogies. I think the main point is that she has one "white family" and one "black family." Therefore, someone who is not biracial of direct descent cannot possibly understand a mixed identity.
I wouldn't think that my experience is the average. However, my family reunions are composed of whites, blacks, asians, latinos, native-americans, and people who are a mix of all these things. We've integrated into one family, but that doesn't make us all one racial identity or culture by far.
1) Although the majority of African-Americans have some racial mixture, not all of us do. For instance, when Whoopie Goldberg and Oprah Winfrey worked with Henry Louis Gates Jr. in his admixture/genealogy study, they discovered that they were both of 100% Sub-Saharan descent, as is T.D. Jakes. However, Chris Tucker did discover some Native American admixture. So, obviously some "dark skinned" blacks are mixed, while others are not. It's absolutely true that you can't assume someone's geneaolgy, admixture or identification by looks alone. That being said, it's pretty silly to insinuate that there isn't a wide gap in mixture percentages when (for lack of better words) comparing someone of hypo-African descent with olive skin, wavy brown hair and blue eyes to someone of hypo-African descent with chocolate colored skin, black afrocentric hair and black eyes.
One correction to your comments: Oprah Winifrey does not have 100% African ancestry and neither does Henry Louis Gates. The former has 89% and the latter has about 50% African ancestry.
Who is insinuating that there are no differences in admixture? Many people, however, seem to believe that the degree of mixture matters, especially people who believe that DSBs are "pure" and LSBs are "mixed" simply based on their personal observations.
Also, hair texture varies in all populations. Some of the darkest people on the planet have straight hair.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
