Joined: 16 Jun 2005 {Posts: 110 } Location: chicago
Posted: Wed 15 Nov 2006 15:28 Post subject: how race works in the USA ?
Is it liberals who are supporters of the one drop rule or the american public in general? Racial identity in the USA is still based on first and foremost "appearance".
Historically Socially Constructed Criteria for Racial Identity
Adapted from "Blackness Visible" by Charles Mills, 1999
The United States has a racial system consists of rules that are occasionally less than clear- cut but based on these basic criteria.
Bodily Appearance: Appearance is the generally (but not always) reliable visible manifestation of a deeper essence that is taken to inhere in ancestry...before the advent of genetics attempts were made to ascertain membership on the basis of such characteristics as skin color, skull measurement, and hair texture.
Ancestry: In the U.S. Racial system, at least for whites and blacks, ancestry is usually taken as both necessary and sufficient for racial membership. (Elsewhere---in some Latin American Countries, for example---appearance is more important, so that siblings of different colors may be assigned to different races despite their identical genealogy.)
Self-Awareness of Ancestry: What ethnic categories do we know about our ancestors historically?
Public Awareness of Ancestry: Unless one remains in a small community where one's genealogy is known to all---one's ancestral racial status may be on record but not generally known.
Culture: Traditional racial theory sees culture as an emanation of "biological race", so that one's "real" biological self is always immanent within the borrowed clothes of the alien culture. Hence, one should embrace the culture associated with their race and failure to do so makes one racially inauthentic.
Experience: In the racial systems we are considering here experience is part of the core of what it is to be a member of a particular race. Thus, in the U.S., we think of whiteness as being associated with the experience of racial privilege and of blackness as being associated with the experience of racial oppression.
Subjective Identification: What one sees oneself as---needs to be conceptually separated from self-awareness of ancestry, for one may refuse to recognize the validity of this criterion for racial membership.
Posted: Thu 16 Nov 2006 08:41 Post subject: Re: how race works in the USA ?
machito wrote:
.... Racial identity in the USA is still based on first and foremost "appearance".
Historically Socially Constructed Criteria for Racial Identity
Adapted from "Blackness Visible" by Charles Mills, 1999
The United States has a racial system consists of rules that are occasionally less than clear- cut but based on these basic criteria.
Bodily Appearance: Appearance is the generally (but not always) reliable visible manifestation of a deeper essence that is taken to inhere in ancestry...before the advent of genetics attempts were made to ascertain membership on the basis of such characteristics as skin color, skull measurement, and hair texture.
Ancestry: In the U.S. Racial system, at least for whites and blacks, ancestry is usually taken as both necessary and sufficient for racial membership. (Elsewhere---in some Latin American Countries, for example---appearance is more important, so that siblings of different colors may be assigned to different races despite their identical genealogy.)
Self-Awareness of Ancestry: What ethnic categories do we know about our ancestors historically?
Public Awareness of Ancestry: Unless one remains in a small community where one's genealogy is known to all---one's ancestral racial status may be on record but not generally known.
Culture: Traditional racial theory sees culture as an emanation of "biological race", so that one's "real" biological self is always immanent within the borrowed clothes of the alien culture. Hence, one should embrace the culture associated with their race and failure to do so makes one racially inauthentic.
Experience: In the racial systems we are considering here experience is part of the core of what it is to be a member of a particular race. Thus, in the U.S., we think of whiteness as being associated with the experience of racial privilege and of blackness as being associated with the experience of racial oppression.
Subjective Identification: What one sees oneself as---needs to be conceptually separated from self-awareness of ancestry, for one may refuse to recognize the validity of this criterion for racial membership.
Plainly, ancestry is the classification-foundation of U.S. census "races" as to the "white"/"black" color line. This makes it analogous to animal husbandry -- practiced on human beings. We even hear the same terminology as used by animal breeders penning farm livestock, hogs or dogs, etc., in breeding kennels. Our "black/white" color line imposes racial endogamy identical to a farmer-breeder's barb-wire fence. To me this reductionism, the government classifying of individuals by their breeding kennel, is extremely offensive. To me this alone discredits such a humanly contemptuous government classificatory scheme.
I gather from my digging around in history that this animal husbandry attitude toward human "races" ("white" vs. "black" by "blood" ancestry) emerged sometime around the mid-1800s. Early forms of "race science" started then, too, in the so-called "neo-Romantic" age, whose main purpose was to heap scorn the Western Enlightenment of the latter 1700s. It was in the Enlightenment Age, almost the same time as Thomas Jefferson's declaration of human equality, that the notion of "scientific races" had first appeared. The Enlightenment view was descriptive, mimicking naturalists classifying animals. It was taxonomy. Blumenbach, an anatomist, had first classified "races" (e.g. "Caucasian" 1775) by physical features -- focusing on skull shapes.
Jesse Jackson, around 1984, instructed liberal America to say "African-American," apparently hoping thereby to impute a sense of ethnic immigrant title to U.S. former Negros. This siphoned off use of the term "black," which was descriptive, and had first acquired polite acceptability circa 1960. The ostensibly "scientific" term "Negro" (Spanish "black"), and the label "colored," had both been acceptable euphemisms up until circa 1970. During Jim Crow years American "blacks" had been widely thought of as sufferers from a sort of unfortunate condition, almost an affliction with the medical name "Negro." (I was born into this viewpoint. Obeying my mother, I reluctantly quit using the much friendly-sounding word "nigger.") After 1969 a bushy feral hair-style called "the Afro" was briefly popular. (My young wife looked great in hers.) "Afro-American" has been a term sometimes used ever since then. I have decided the term "Afro-American" is superior to Jesse Jackson's formulation. This is because "Afro" is a descriptive prefix, and one which can imply combination with other ethnicities, not only African.
My wife recently pointed out to me that the labeling of World War II's interned American Nisei Japanese is carefully re-framed, in scolding public TV documentaries presenting their story. They are re-labeled "Americans of Japanese ancestry." This phrasing obviously is to emphasize their American citizenship; and their Japanese "blood" merely is racially identifying. The phrase works for the many "mixes" among the Nisei, too. Jesse Jackson's "African-American" reverses the subliminal message. Emphasis is put on unmixed African, on racial "black blood," and is directed away from American citizenship as basis of identity. Imagine hearing, "Americans of African ancestry". How might that sound?
George
My question in reference to your comment is this: is it liberals who are supporters of the one drop rule or the american public in general ?
The American public in general supports the ODR. Most Americans are not aware or would not believe that there is no such thing as a White or Black race that can be separated, diluted or essentialized.
It's amusing to me that the ODR is presented as some sort of concoction made up by left-leaning Black identity politicians, and scores of right-leaning White conservatives do not have exactly the same view of "the races." If that was the case then you'd see more Black-White marriages taking place in the oldest WASP families, integrated churches and a push by the Republican party to educate the American public about the fallacy of race. Yeah, I can see that last going over well in the South.
It's amusing to me that the ODR is presented as some sort of concoction made up by left-leaning Black identity politicians, and scores of right-leaning White conservatives do not have exactly the same view of "the races." If that was the case then you'd see more Black-White marriages taking place in the oldest WASP families, integrated churches and a push by the Republican party to educate the American public about the fallacy of race. Yeah, I can see that last going over well in the South.
Do Blacks support/advocate involuntary "racial" assignment based upon trivial African ancestry more that Whites do? Are more Whites supportive of the ODR than Blacks? Is it about the same?
As Maya points out, there is little doubt that, of the members of this discussion group who have expressed an opinion, most seem to believe that Blacks support the ODR more. As A.D. once said, "the one-drop rule is a rotting door held up by Black hands."
The problem is that we lack hard data on this. Opinions are a dime-a-dozen, even scholarly ones. I can cite a dozen serious scholars who believe that Blacks support the ODR more than Whites. I can cite another dozen that believe the exact opposite. The only thing that everyone agrees on is that no one has any hard data. About twice a year I suggest that this would be a great research paper for a sociology or cultural anthropology student. Even it were limited to interviewing students on campus, it would give us something at least.
Judging only by members of this discussion group, one might suspect that Blacks support involuntary "racial" assignment more than Whites do. We have yet to see a post from a White-identified member advocating this, but several Black-identified members have done so. But this is an illusion created by the fact that our members are self-selected. They comprise people who are willing to examine U.S. racialism with an open mind. White purity zealots seldom post to this discussion group because they know that they would be eaten alive. But check out stormfront or any of the other White purity forums and you will see involuntary "racial" assignment based upon invisible ancestry far more zealously advocated than anything posted here.
And so, although scholarly opinions are split 50-50, and most ODR members seem to think Blacks support the ODR, the fact is that nobody has any hard data.
Posted: Fri 17 Nov 2006 14:47 Post subject: American opinions on the ODR
I think the fight over the Multiracial Census Category provided the best proof so far that most American "whites" have no interest in imposing specific racial categories on people who reject them. The mainstream "white" media were almost universally sympathetic to the Multiracial movement, agreeing that imposing a "black" identity on people was a legacy of racism. The "black" media were almost universally opposed to any attack on forced hypodescent. They agreed that the legacy was racist, but insisted that it had a positive effect in promoting unity against racism. The more unschooled comments from black-identified individuals who wrote to "Interracial Voice" and other forums seemed to emphasize envy ("You think you're better than me") and sexual issues ("You think you're too good to marry blacks").
I dismiss "Stormfront" and other acknowledged white supremacists altogether. If their opinions mattered, the media would tell us that Jews are a separate nonwhite race, that no Hispanics are white (as opposed to "regardless of race" and "non-white Hispanics"), and that all non-white genes (not just "black") should be banned from the "white race." Needless to say, a person who expressed those views in public would be condemned as a nut, a Nazi, or both.
Posted: Fri 17 Nov 2006 16:21 Post subject: Re: American opinions on the ODR
Powell wrote:
I think the fight over the Multiracial Census Category provided the best proof so far that most American "whites" have no interest in imposing specific racial categories on people who reject them. The mainstream "white" media were almost universally sympathetic to the Multiracial movement, agreeing that imposing a "black" identity on people was a legacy of racism. The "black" media were almost universally opposed to any attack on forced hypodescent. They agreed that the legacy was racist, but insisted that it had a positive effect in promoting unity against racism. The more unschooled comments from black-identified individuals who wrote to "Interracial Voice" and other forums seemed to emphasize envy ("You think you're better than me") and sexual issues ("You think you're too good to marry blacks").
I dismiss "Stormfront" and other acknowledged white supremacists altogether. If their opinions mattered, the media would tell us that Jews are a separate nonwhite race, that no Hispanics are white (as opposed to "regardless of race" and "non-white Hispanics"), and that all non-white genes (not just "black") should be banned from the "white race." Needless to say, a person who expressed those views in public would be condemned as a nut, a Nazi, or both.
The "media" is not most Americans, but the views that Powell attributes to white supremacists are uttered by Americans from every walk of life. Perhaps White Americans are savvy enough to realize that strengthening whiteness benefits them in the long run.
What evidence does Powell have other than the media or correspondence with Black Americans that the majority of Whites do not have a vested interest in maintaining racial categories? Adding a multiracial label does not have a thing to do with how White people see themselves, and it also is no indication that Whites reject racial categorization on the grounds that "race does not exist" or "we're all the same and welcome to the family." I'd argue that they don't care as long as white privileges are protected. White people of African descent will continue to be accepted as Whites if they can eliminate or distance themselves from embarrassing and visual links to blackness.
Posted: Fri 17 Nov 2006 21:48 Post subject: Re: American opinions on the ODR
sagascend wrote:
The "media" is not most Americans, but the views that Powell attributes to white supremacists are uttered by Americans from every walk of life. Perhaps White Americans are savvy enough to realize that strengthening whiteness benefits them in the long run.
As long as we are theorizing in the absence of hard data, what about socio-economic class, education level, or ethnicity? Are upper-middle class Americans more or less likely to advocate ODR than poor ones? Are college graduates more or less likely than highschool dropouts? Are Irish-American more or less likely than Arab-Americans? Hell, what about gender? Our ignorance is so vast that it would fill entire bookshelves.
Joined: 24 Jun 2006 {Posts: 64 } Location: Tampa, Florida.
Posted: Sun 19 Nov 2006 22:12 Post subject: Re: American opinions on the ODR
Powell wrote:
I think the fight over the Multiracial Census Category provided the best proof so far that most American "whites" have no interest in imposing specific racial categories on people who reject them. The mainstream "white" media were almost universally sympathetic to the Multiracial movement, agreeing that imposing a "black" identity on people was a legacy of racism. The "black" media were almost universally opposed to any attack on forced hypodescent. They agreed that the legacy was racist, but insisted that it had a positive effect in promoting unity against racism. The more unschooled comments from black-identified individuals who wrote to "Interracial Voice" and other forums seemed to emphasize envy ("You think you're better than me") and sexual issues ("You think you're too good to marry blacks").
I dismiss "Stormfront" and other acknowledged white supremacists altogether. If their opinions mattered, the media would tell us that Jews are a separate nonwhite race, that no Hispanics are white (as opposed to "regardless of race" and "non-white Hispanics"), and that all non-white genes (not just "black") should be banned from the "white race." Needless to say, a person who expressed those views in public would be condemned as a nut, a Nazi, or both.
I agree with Powell 100% I believe it is blacks who are the main supporters and advocaters of the One drop rule. The only segment of White America that firmly supports and advocates the ODR is the White supremacists/Facist groups as well as a minority of white liberals and leftist. I honestly believe that most white liberals do not believe in the ODR, but the problem is they're so hyper sensitive to being called racist that they won't dare challenge the black community on the issue. So dispite being opposed to the ODR they will still continue to help their allies(The Black Elites) advocate it just because they are so terrified that they might be accused of being racist if they don't. I believe it is the black elites who are truly devoted to the ODR, they adhere to it like it's the divine word of God. They're devotion to the ODR is as strong as fanatical Islamic terrorist devotion is to Islam. They will do anything to advocate and defend it.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
