Posted: Sun 26 Nov 2006 19:24 Post subject: Racial revisionism or healthy hypothesizing?
Of late there’s been quite a debate on this website regarding whether it is appropriate to question why obviously multiracial individuals currently choose or previously chose a “black” identity. This discussion is hardly new, however, as I found out back in March 1998 after I penned Charles Drew, Jean Toomer, Julian Bond and "Choices" and posted same to Interracial Voice.
As I wrote then, Drew was a blended or mixed-race individual, though he identified as black. One reader in particular claimed that any attempt to identify Dr. Drew otherwise would be revisionist, as he never publicly called himself anything else. Additionally, that editorial prompted the following letter, albeit a few years later, from a person claiming to be a relative of Drew:
Quote:
From: Kelly Price kprice_32@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004
Subject: Interracial
Dear Mr. Byrd:
As mentioned in err in your article, "Drew had to have known, though, that there was a price to pay for "running away from blackness," the inane accusation made against self-identified multiracials even as we approach a new millennium."
I wish before you would write such articles that you would perform more research instead of creating speculation. As the eldest granddaughter of the late Charles R. Drew, MD, I find your article very hard to swallow. Yes, there are many of us who are light skinned Blacks, yet, we are quite proud of our heritage. We do not run away from it. Neither for that matter did my grandfather or he would not have suffered the years of indignation he did. Realizing this article was written sometime ago, perhaps you could find it in your heart to rewrite this insanely wrong piece.
It is people such as yourself who create problems for us as a race.
Kelly Price Noble
Note that I never claimed Drew for the nascent multiracial community. I merely stated that, as we construe the race notion, he was clearly mixed, biracial, interracial, mulatto or whatever descriptor you wish to use. That is not revisionism; that is truth.
In another thread on this website, a particular contributor recently offered:
Quote:
Perhaps it is my uncanny ability to recall that no one here is privy to the personal thoughts and motivations of people who have not shared them with us in verbal or written form.
Well, folks, that works both ways. Because none of us (whether we be friend, relative or lover) are privy to every single thought that arises in someone else’s mind, we cannot possibly know the basis for any individual’s public racial identity. It is possible that Charles Drew identified as black, because that’s genuinely how he viewed himself. It is also possible, with all due respect to Kelly Price Noble, that Drew felt he had no other choice but to call himself black.
As a quick aside, I’ve always been amused upon hearing "black" nationalists claim: "Well you know, Martin was coming around to our way of thinking right before he died." Really? Then the so-called mainstream-moderate "black" leaders proudly assert: "Well you know, Martin would have approved of this current system of racial classification." Really? How do they know? Even those who knew MLK personally could not possibly have duplicated, perfectly, his thought processes. It is impossible because each individual soul is distinct and unique; there are no carbon copies. I digress, though.
Remember that back in Drew’s day segregation was rampant and racial attitudes were considerably more hardened than today. In fact, a lie concerning the circumstances of his death circulated and became an urban legend that was only recently debunked. We now know that part of Drew’s departure from the material realm to be a total fabrication that someone hatched for reasons we don’t understand. I get the feeling, however, that some on this board would have cried foul or would have hurled accusations of revisionism at efforts to investigate whether fifty year-old claims of racism on the part of staff at the hospital at which Drew died were actually true.
The point is that it is not unfair, unethical, insane or revisionist to question whether the choices others made regarding their racial identity were voluntary or coerced. I believe that many who eagerly denounce this sort of healthy speculation are concerned that it might compel them to call their own identity preferences into question. Have they made the correct choices vis-à-vis “identity,” or have they allowed the larger society to impose an identity upon them? For that matter, what actually constitutes a correct choice when it comes to identity? Questioning the public identities of Charles Drew and others makes a lot of good folks squirm in their chairs, and I believe it is because they know deep down inside that this society has imposed its racialist will upon all of us to one degree or another. Some of us are simply more willing than others to admit that.
The point is that it is not unfair, unethical, insane or revisionist to question whether the choices others made regarding their racial identity were voluntary or coerced. I believe that many who eagerly denounce this sort of healthy speculation are concerned that it might compel them to call their own identity preferences into question. Have they made the correct choices vis-à-vis “identity,” or have they allowed the larger society to impose an identity upon them? For that matter, what actually constitutes a correct choice when it comes to identity? Questioning the public identities of Charles Drew and others makes a lot of good folks squirm in their chairs, and I believe it is because they know deep down inside that this society has imposed its racialist will upon all of us to one degree or another. Some of us are simply more willing than others to admit that.
The same fair, ethical, sane and non-revisionist questioning is valid for any racial identity, including multiracial identity. There are no sacred cows in this debate on racialism, there are no "right" or "wrong" identities for people of mixed race that can be imposed from the outside, that they should be coerced or shamed into when whatever identity politicos start wagging fingers. There are only right and wrong choices for individuals as each attempts to arrive at some level of peace about their racial selves.
To question to public identity of individuals is hardly noble if the point of the inquiry is to disparage their personal identity choices. It is not even the only or best way to go about deconstructing a racialist system. I would argue that this line of inquiry feels justified and moral, but it is neither. The poking and prodding at those who, unfortunately, bear the burden of the visibly mixed in American society, which is to bear constant scrutiny and suspicion from all sides in the racial identity wars. Why not scrutinize everyone, for who in American society is capable of choosing a racial identity that somehow transcends race or the problems associated with racialism? Why pick on Charles Drew but not Will Smith? Why is it okay for Martin Luther King to call himself a "Negro" but not Thurgood Marshall? It's my view that the scrutiny and inquiry applies only to those Americans who look racially ambiguous or have a European phenotype to the inquirer. It's almost like some people are trying to comprehend why a person who can "escape blackness" chooses not to? Is this even possible, such people ask themselves, given the obvious drawbacks to blackness? Since actual ethnic affinity seems unlikely to the inquirers, given their political point of view, alternative reasons are sought and sought.
It is society's job to impose on the individual, a notable feature of life within a human collective. Clearly there is no fundamental immorality associated with the imposition of racial labels, as many multiracial activists will allow the such impositions, but perhaps some simply want the political power to identify and label the people that they want to claim. It's the same game with a new player.
I often wonder, though, when success is achieved, will the exclusionary aspect of this identification process rear its head? What would be said if African Americans who look like Clarence Thomas, Oprah Winifrey, Taye Diggs and Cicely Tyson start to embrace their multiracial heritage? What will happen if the multiracial waters are "muddied" by the "monoracials" who won't stay in their places and keep checking the Black/White/Asian/Hispanic boxes? I often wonder whether this whole debate, for some people, is more about defining particular phenotypes deemed racially ambiguous as "multiracial," which is puzzling from a scientific perspective, but totally predictable behavior for people with a racialist mindset. That would explain the fixation on the visibly mixed, a concept that is highly ambiguous and subjective in itself.
Some people here seem to not be able to separate ethnic identity from geographical ancestry. It is no problem to say a Black person has mixed ancestry. Or say a Mixed person has the same mixed ancestry as that Black person. A Black person can be obviously multi ancestral and a multi ancestral person can fully identify as Black. Same goes for White. It is just harder for the identity to be accepted.
# k. black — The word “black” has different meanings that are easily confused. Members should keep in mind that readers often misunderstand which meaning was intended by the writer, especially since many readers are not native speakers of U.S. English. For example, each of the following sentences uses the word to mean something different: “Black neighborhood traditions center on Protestant churches.” “Many Brazilians have Black ancestry.” “The untouchables of India are Black.” “Australian Aborigines self-identify as Black.” “Walter White was actually Black even though he looked White.” “Black people around the world, especially in Asia and the Middle East, were exploited and oppressed by European conquest and colonization.”
Posted: Mon 27 Nov 2006 13:49 Post subject: Identity
I think Charles is pointing out the lopsided nature of the racial identity debate. Those who advocate the ODR or any other type of forced hypodescent (tacitly understood to be for NON-HISPANICS and NON-ARABS only) imply that it is law or actively enforced by the white majority. Like Gregory Howard Williams, many of them first state that they HAD NO CHOICE in being "black" and then only whine that their "choice" is being taken from them when a little criticism of forced "black" identity manages to make it into the mainstream media.
The truth is that there is NO AGREEMENT in the U.S. on what makes a person "black." The only standard is that one must have the dreaded "blood." There are no standards of culture or consent.
It's my view that the scrutiny and inquiry applies only to those Americans who look racially ambiguous or have a European phenotype to the inquirer.
If Jesse Jackson, Stanley Crouch, Al Sharpton, Clarence Thomas, Bill Cosby, Oprah Winfrey, Halle Berry, Barack Obama or anyone else opts to identify as multiracial or mulatto, I would certainly support and applaud their choice to exercise their individual self-identity prerogative.
sagascend wrote:
It is society's job to impose on the individual...
Historically, as someone of your high intelligence surely knows, the lighter-skinned (near-white) mixed individual has had the tougher time resolving his internal identity crises -- i.e., forging an identity and satisfying role for himself within a black versus white society. His mirror reflection is often 180 degrees in opposition to the societally imposed identity of which you apparently approve. He is the one who most fears condemnation and threats of violence from both blacks (if they presume he is trying to "pass" -- not something easily accomplished by, say, a Martin Luther King, Jr. or even a Frederick Douglass) and whites (if they find him out).
This is the person more often than not caught in a no-man's land of identity, and it is not inappropriate to speculate on what choices this marginal man would have made if he had been able to avail himself of the contemporary mixed-race dialogue.
It is not that anyone is positing that a "black" cannot be of mixed ancestry yet still call himself the former. The fact is that choices regarding individual racial identity (now frequently couched in terms of ethnicity and/or culture) were extremely limited at one point in this country, and the only revisionism I see is the effort to say it wasn't so.
There are three interlinked issues here, and I would like to separate them. First is disparaging an individual's choice of ethnic identity. Second is U.S. society's imposition of involuntary identity. Third is how can anyone criticize multiracialism without violating the first issue.
Regarding the first issue,
sagascend wrote:
To question to public identity of individuals is hardly noble if the point of the inquiry is to disparage their personal identity choices.
I think that most members would agree with this. The bedrock of the multiracial movement was the principle that everyone has the inalienable right to choose his or her own identity without being challenged by anyone. This applies whether you look Nordic, Bantu, or anywhere in between. It applies whether you self-identify as Aryan, African, or anywhere in between. And it applies whether you advocate or attack multiracialism as wise public policy. It is true that this website's policy leaves a loophole, subject to moderator interpretation, for members to accuse non-members of hypocrisy and opportunism. But even this loophole leaves many of us uncomfortable with what we see as a violation of that bedrock principle. The Gregory Howard Williams case is a good example. A.D. Powell has criticized the man for one day playing the role of a helpless victim forced into Blackness by White society, and the next day claiming proudly to have made a free choice based on his own conscience. Obviously, the man is inconsistent. So be it. We are all inconsistent. Every one of us dons different roles depending on our mood and our audience. In short, a demand that Williams should display superhuman consistency rubs many of us the wrong way.
Regarding the second issue,
sagascend wrote:
It is society's job to impose on the individual, a notable feature of life within a human collective. Clearly there is no fundamental immorality associated with the imposition of racial labels...
I suggest that members would dispute this overwhelmingly. Social imposition of an involuntary "racial" label is fundamentally immoral in the Kantian categorical imperative sense of trying to control a person's innermost thoughts. It is fundamentally immoral in the religious sense of stepping between a person and his/her conscience. And, most of all, it is fundamentally immoral, nay it is monstrously wicked in the utilitarian sense, in that it has caused untold suffering and death over the past few centuries. Maya asks, "What would be said if African Americans who look like Clarence Thomas, Oprah Winifrey, Taye Diggs and Cicely Tyson start to embrace their multiracial heritage? What will happen if the multiracial waters are "muddied" by the "monoracials" who won't stay in their places and keep checking the Black/White/Asian/Hispanic boxes?" Answer #1: If everyone deliberately chose counterintuitive self-labels, it might help to deconstruct the entire hideous "race" notion. Answer # 2: America might eventually slough off its bizarre social pathology. Answer #3: I, for one, would cheer myself hoarse.
Regarding the third issue, if we accept that the bedrock of the multiracial movement is the principle that everyone has the inalienable right to choose his or her own identity without being challenged by anyone, then how can any member criticize the movement? After all, this forum is intended to enable pro as well as con arguments. A forum about multiracialism that allows only agreement is a mere cheering section and not a discussion group at all. I suggest two answers:
First, one might argue that free choice is morally wrong and, as Maya put it, "there is no fundamental immorality associated with the imposition of racial labels." I would not stop members from arguing thus, but I would point out that, given all the tenets of moral philosophy (summarized above), such an argument is singularly unpersuasive to a post-18th-century audience. For the past two centuries or so, members of our culture have taken our personal freedoms very seriously indeed.
Second, one might argue that, although multiracialism's freedom of choice is morally acceptable, it is impractical or unwise as public policy, that freedom of ethnic choice should be disallowed in the interest of leveling the playing field of historical injustice. While some (Connerly, for example) would dispute such an argument because it harms more that it heals, at least it does not make the proponent look like a time-traveller from the 18th century.
Last edited by fwsweet on Mon 27 Nov 2006 18:09; edited 2 times in total
[L]ighter-skinned (near-white) mixed individual has had the tougher time resolving his internal identity crises -- i.e., forging an identity and satisfying role for himself within a black versus white society.
I don't know about making that generalization based on skin color alone. Even accepting the premise that visually mixed race people with a more European appearance experience increased anxiety or conflict about their personal identity, I don't believe that this conflict is an intrinsic psychological trait of "mixedness." Our internal conflicts seem to arise through interaction with other people, not merely looking in the mirror.
The internal identity crises in our binary racial system seems to come from situating relevant parts of self-identity on both sides. This dual nature can be visual, ancestral, behavioral, economic, marital, etc. The struggle comes in whatever way a person is deemed to have crossed the line...socially, visibily, maritally, etc. It's only when you strip away the racial aspects of this problem that you see the crises is likely more universal that we are able to recognize in a racialized society.
chasbyrd wrote:
His mirror reflection is often 180 degrees in opposition to the societally imposed identity of which you apparently approve.
No that's wrong. I do not approve of the imposition of racial identities. I simply stated that imposition on individual freedom is often the "price of admission" for participating in it. A racialized society seeks to impose racial identities on individuals.
chasbyrd wrote:
He is the one who most fears condemnation and threats of violence from both blacks (if they presume he is trying to "pass" -- not something easily accomplished by, say, a Martin Luther King, Jr. or even a Frederick Douglass) and whites (if they find him out).
Such a person fears condemnation by embracing whiteness, by choosing a White identity, not by merely existing. His mere existence, a testament to the permeability of the B-W colorline, is resolved in the mind of the average American racialist with strict adherance to the ODR. The ODR is about protecting the sanctity of the "White race," which should not be "poisoned" with contributions from the African gene pool. Strict racialists have and can embraced "intermediate" racial labels, but whiteness is still supposed to be off-limits to the person of African descent.
Hispanic and Mideastern people of African descent accomplish this all of the time..."passing." Sammy Sosa is much more sub Saharan looking than MLK or Frederick Douglass yet his racial identity is not highly scrutinized. What is it about African American ancestry in particular that seems to bring out the magnifying glass?
chasbyrd wrote:
This is the person more often than not caught in a no-man's land of identity, and it is not inappropriate to speculate on what choices this marginal man would have made if he had been able to avail himself of the contemporary mixed-race dialogue.
But that is the past. All we can do is speculate about historical figures until someone builds a time machine. Now that any person who has been paying attention for the last 10-15 years can avail themselves of the "contemporary mixed-race dialogue," why the speculation on currently living mixed race people of African descent? Are these "marginal men" not making informed choices? I don't see the difference between Heather Locklear, Jennifer Beals and Jada Pinkett. I do wonder why no one questions Heather's apparent decision to be a White person when she is multiracial? Why is it okay for Jennifer Beals to "betray her whiteness" and identify as a biracial person? Why is it a non-issue that the clearly multiracial Jada Pinkett identifies as a Black woman? What makes any of these three individual decisions more or less acceptable; more or less "appropriate" to scrutinize than others?
chasbyrd wrote:
The fact is that choices regarding individual racial identity (now frequently couched in terms of ethnicity and/or culture) were extremely limited at one point in this country, and the only revisionism I see is the effort to say it wasn't so.
I suggest that members would dispute this overwhelmingly. Social imposition of an involuntary "racial" label is fundamentally immoral in the Kantian categorical imperative sense of trying to control a person's innermost thoughts. It is fundamentally immoral in the religious sense of stepping between a person and his/her conscience. And, most of all, it is fundamentally immoral, nay it is monstrously wicked in the utilitarian sense, in that it has caused untold suffering and death over the past few centuries. Maya asks, "What would be said if African Americans who look like Clarence Thomas, Oprah Winifrey, Taye Diggs and Cicely Tyson start to embrace their multiracial heritage? What will happen if the multiracial waters are "muddied" by the "monoracials" who won't stay in their places and keep checking the Black/White/Asian/Hispanic boxes?" Answer #1: If everyone deliberately chose counterintuitive self-labels, it might help to deconstruct the entire hideous "race" notion. Answer # 2: America might eventually slough off its bizarre social pathology. Answer #3: I, for one, would cheer myself hoarse.
What I mean is, racial labels are not immoral a priori. Neither is racial categorization. It quite possible to impose racial labels that are accurate. It is not possible to impose racial labels, accurate or inaccurate, on people who reject them with any pretense of morality.
The "involuntary" component of racial categorization, coupled with the despicable and thoroughly immoral practice of racism, is what I wholeheartedly object to on moral grounds.
Think about it this way: When an American goes to Brazil, should s/he be morally outraged that Brazilians refer to him/her using a racial (appearance-based) label that differs from the one s/he applies to self?
To question to public identity of individuals is hardly noble if the point of the inquiry is to disparage their personal identity choices.
I think that most members would agree with this.
I’ve never criticized Drew personally for the choice he made; rather, I’ve criticized the dearth of choices or options that were available to him. Anyone who asserts that I have engaged in defaming Drew is deliberately distorting my meaning.
Posted: Thu 30 Nov 2006 00:39 Post subject: What "science" is puzzled by multiracial?
sagascend wrote:
I often wonder whether this whole debate, for some people, is more about defining particular phenotypes deemed racially ambiguous as "multiracial," which is puzzling from a scientific perspective, but totally predictable behavior for people with a racialist mindset. That would explain the fixation on the visibly mixed, a concept that is highly ambiguous and subjective in itself.
This comment puzzles me. Does Sagascend think that recognizing the racially ambiguous phenotypes is scientifically unfounded or delusional "behavior for ... people with a racialist mindset"? Other terms for "ambiguous phenotype" must be racially blended, biracial, multiracial, or even "the visibly mixed, a concept that is highly ambiguous and subjective in itself," declares Sagascend. What is Sagascend trying to say? And what part of this does Sagascend say is "puzzling from a scientific perspective"? Is Sagascend implying that the "mono-races" are scientifically sound? Will Sagascend count-off the "different" human "races" to us ("Science's" count, of course)?
The "visibly mixed" are truly messengers, in their way, instructing society that what seemed (to most) to be immutable "different" "mono-races" are merely nuances of a single human race -- one which freely blends. However, there exist strategies to block this insight. "Races"-attribution "rules," hypodescent, the ODR, work to restore the immutability of separate, "different" "mono-races"-- and the seeing it so follows believing according to these "rules." ("Mono-races" by hypnosis?)
What seems clear to me is, alerting America that beautiful multiracial people (fertile ones) live and breath right before their eyes, living proof of the solubility of alleged "mono-races," challenges the hypnosis. This logically will deconstruct racism. Sagascend says she hates racism (calls it despicable, etc.). Why, therefore, does she so vehemently condemn "defining particular phenotypes deemed racially ambiguous as 'multiracial'" with all this disparaging talk invoking dubious "science"?
George
Posted: Thu 30 Nov 2006 05:19 Post subject: Re: What "science" is puzzled by multiracial?
winwinkel wrote:
This comment puzzles me. Does Sagascend think that recognizing the racially ambiguous phenotypes is scientifically unfounded or delusional "behavior for ... people with a racialist mindset"?
I don't understand how Winwinkel comes up with this stuff...truly. I simply do not believe that singling out phenotypes with the fascination school children reserve for caged animals in zoos makes much sense. If all humans are of the same race, what is a "multiracial" phenotype? All that seems to mean is that someone doesn't fit easily into some sort of Blumenbachian racial category, that the way a person looks is psychologically uncomfortable for people with a need to categorize humanity into discrete racial groups.
winwinkel wrote:
Other terms for "ambiguous phenotype" must be racially blended, biracial, multiracial, or even "the visibly mixed, a concept that is highly ambiguous and subjective in itself," declares Sagascend. What is Sagascend trying to say? And what part of this does Sagascend say is "puzzling from a scientific perspective"? Is Sagascend implying that the "mono-races" are scientifically sound? Will Sagascend count-off the "different" human "races" to us ("Science's" count, of course)?
Again, I find the attempt to "chunk up" the seamless continuity of human diversity into color-coded sections ridiculous. I don't know how winwinkel discerned otherwise especially since it is a point of view that I frequently express. I'm not sure what racial categories Winwinkel would like to hear sounded off and I am certainly not inclined to do so.
Winwinkel wrote:
The "visibly mixed" are truly messengers, in their way, instructing society that what seemed (to most) to be immutable "different" "mono-races" are merely nuances of a single human race -- one which freely blends. However, there exist strategies to block this insight. "Races"-attribution "rules," hypodescent, the ODR, work to restore the immutability of separate, "different" "mono-races"-- and the seeing it so follows believing according to these "rules." ("Mono-races" by hypnosis?)
People who have a racially ambiguous look shouldn't be instructing us of anything. We are all "nuances of a single human race" for goodness sake!What exactly is the purpose of making "poster children" out of people who cannot help they way they look? Treating multiracial people as exceptional specimens, as the Great Brown Hopes, does nothing to minimize racialism. To me it only encourages it because we still believe that "purity" is "blending" when people with divergent phenotypes have children.
Winwinkel wrote:
What seems clear to me is, alerting America that beautiful multiracial people (fertile ones) live and breath right before their eyes, living proof of the solubility of alleged "mono-races," challenges the hypnosis. This logically will deconstruct racism. Sagascend says she hates racism (calls it despicable, etc.). Why, therefore, does she so vehemently condemn "defining particular phenotypes deemed racially ambiguous as 'multiracial'" with all this disparaging talk invoking dubious "science"?
Are people unaware of multiracial people? How is that possible?
Winwinkel couldn't understand my point less if he had neglected to read it at all. Until someone who has deconstructed the human genome can tell me with confidence that humanity is divided into races and the "hybridization" of the species occurs when a sub Saharan and a Nordic produce offspring, I will continue to view any attempt to sensationalize racial ambiguity with suspicion. Humans have been mixing for millenia. Our well-intentioned critique of the U.S. B-W colorline is misplaced arrogance to think that, somehow, we have created "race-mixing" and need to pat ourselves on the backs and our racially ambiguous citizens on the heads. What the scientific community seems to be saying is that racial terms and racialized thinking is wrongheaded and detrimental to common sense. I couldn't agree more.
Why is it okay for Martin Luther King to call himself a "Negro" but not Thurgood Marshall? It's my view that the scrutiny and inquiry applies only to those Americans who look racially ambiguous or have a European phenotype to the inquirer. It's almost like some people are trying to comprehend why a person who can "escape blackness" chooses not to? Is this even possible, such people ask themselves, given the obvious drawbacks to blackness?
Exactly. Whiteness is valued over Blackness by some mixed-race advocates to the extent that they will demonize those who don't follow the party line. Racial identity then follows a Stalinist path in which dissenters are crushed for not following the racial dogma of the White-centric mixed-race advocates. I've read articles where the parents of biracial children are called child abusers because they raised their children as "black." Typically, the authors of such attacks claim that the parents teach their children that their white ancestry is "too good for" them. Or that people who don't follow the White-centric view are "sick."
It reminds me of "Animal Farm," in which we learn that some are more equal than others. Mixed-race people who don't follow the approved dogma aren't as equal. And, as in Cuba and the old Soviet Union, they are "sick" and in need of a visit to the racial re-education camp to learn to think the right way. Personal choice to self-identify is a good thing as long as one realizes that there is only one party and one candidate for which to vote.
Posted: Thu 30 Nov 2006 23:20 Post subject: Re: What "science" is puzzled by multiracial?
sagascend wrote:
winwinkel wrote:
What seems clear to me is, alerting America that beautiful multiracial people (fertile ones) live and breath right before their eyes, living proof of the solubility of alleged "mono-races," challenges the hypnosis. This logically will deconstruct racism. Sagascend says she hates racism (calls it despicable, etc.). Why, therefore, does she so vehemently condemn "defining particular phenotypes deemed racially ambiguous as 'multiracial'" with all this disparaging talk invoking dubious "science"?
Are people unaware of multiracial people? How is that possible?
I am sure this is true -- people are unaware of multiracial people. (Univ. ethnic studies have not seen fit to produce any relevant survey data, apparently.) How is it possible? I think the answer has to do with the peculiar U.S. Americans' way of seeing themselves color-line divided by endogamous "races."
The cartoonist Aaron McGruder depicts his biracial "Jazmin" character's "white" neighborhood friends seeing her only as "black." I have posted previously recalling that I grew up vague (my neighborhood "whiter" than McGruder's) as to whether biracial "black & white" really existed or was a myth? My notions of distinguishing between race and species were vague too. This may seem surprising to "black"-identifying endogamous folk. I have since been educated to grasp that "black" people know of their ancestral racial "amalgamation." But they choose to self-identify by hyposescent-ODR "rules" as "only black." Three reasons for this, I think: (1) "Black leaders" exploit their Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960), "racial right" to gerrymander "majority-minority" identity-political rags that they hack from the whole cloth of American racial diversity, via census data. (2) "Black" racial ignorance does not stray far away from its counterpart in "white" racism. The core notion of American rac[ial]ism is dreaded "amalgamation," meaning "race mixing." The cause of such irrational fear must lie in post 18th-Century pseudo-science -- another whole topic exploring those twisted eugenic views on Mendelian laws of inheritance, Darwinian evolution, and the dangers of recklessly casting certain nouns into reality on the forge of laws. If Sagascend opposes racism it would behoove her to learn that three generations and more of U.S. Jim Crow segregation was bent on stopping "multiracial people" from being born. (3) Apparently "black" identified endogamous Americans still have shame about being "mixed." Honor, pride in "mixture" is new to Americans who formerly tried to deny, hide it, even feared it with good reason. "White" people formerly had enacted the force of Jim Crow laws preserving their "white blood " (& "anti-miscegenation" laws since 1691) -- enforcing ODR "purity" standards in most states by the late 1920's. (Note: Consider the evidence of the 1915 blockbuster horror movie hit Birth of A Nation, praised by Pres. Woodrow Wilson, which depicted Mulattos nearly conquering Reconstruction America, stopped in the nick-of-time by "heroic" KKK; & see the evidence of 1934 Imitation of Life, movie which struggled to explain its "passing" Peola character as a pure black with no drop of white "blood" in her.) Today, "black" Americans apparently still feel alarmed merely acknowledging the evidence of history flowing in their own veins. Can Sagascend comment on this evidence of lingering shame? How can the ongoing social enforcement of the hypodescent-ODR "rules" not block dissipating the "mixing"-shame?
sagascend wrote:
I will continue to view any attempt to sensationalize racial ambiguity with suspicion. Humans have been mixing for millenia. Our well-intentioned critique of the U.S. B-W colorline is misplaced arrogance to think that, somehow, we have created "race-mixing" and need to pat ourselves on the backs and our racially ambiguous citizens on the heads. What the scientific community seems to be saying is that racial terms and racialized thinking is wrongheaded and detrimental to common sense. I couldn't agree more.
Sagascend's word-choice of "sensationalize" tells us much about her fear of change -- which I call honor finally coming to blending -- although Sagascend vulgarly still calls it "race-mixing." Many in the scientific community do seem to stumble over their own feet trying to be politically correct or please the "Black Powers that Be," passing now for final authorities on all subjects "racial."
sagascend wrote:
If all humans are of the same race, what is a "multiracial" phenotype?
One human race is still racial. The word racial is just an adjective, unable to create any color lines of its own. Racial modifies a noun, which may legally be limited to our single human race (in all of its colorful glory). Clearly, politically correct modern scientists have not figured this out yet. All of the world's visible (& invisible) racial diversity folds compactly into this parsimonious viewpoint. It is the opposite of hiding racial "mixing" behind a "color blind" curtain of tongue-twisting blab envisioning Venn diagrams. (I.e., measuring more same than same different differences[?]) It is about honoring blending which is easily seen. Sagascand has not explained why the U.S. needs to census "mono-races," which Americans are thoroughly indoctrinated to recognize on sight; but she interjects contemporary "science's" confused flight away from all ideas "racial" as Sagascend's screen for blocking vision of multiracial "phenotypes"? Why the shame, fear of "mixing"? Isn't that racist?
George
Sagascend's word-choice of "sensationalize" tells us much about her fear of change -- which I call honor finally coming to blending -- although Sagascend vulgarly still calls it "race-mixing." Many in the scientific community do seem to stumble over their own feet trying to be politically correct or please the "Black Powers that Be," passing now for final authorities on all subjects "racial."
Oh, come on. Aren't you putting words into her mouth? How does "sensationalize" equate with her being afraid? Her point is that we multiracial people are mutants or some great evolutionary step for humanity. Mixed-race people are just human beings. There have been mixed-race people for ages as she points out.
And that is the point: I am mixed-race. My mom is mixed-race. My dad is mixed-race. Both of their parents are mixed.
People of different races have been procreating with each other before there were "races."
We aren't freaks to be pointed out. Nor are we ambassadors of some new age.
Mixed-race people are not something out of science fiction or fantasy. Equating any kind of specialness to us only serves to separate and dehumanize us.
Posted: Fri 01 Dec 2006 01:18 Post subject: Re: What "science" is puzzled by multiracial?
winwinkel wrote:
What seems clear to me is, alerting America that beautiful multiracial people (fertile ones) live and breath right before their eyes, living proof of the solubility of alleged "mono-races," challenges the hypnosis. This logically will deconstruct racism. Sagascend says she hates racism (calls it despicable, etc.). Why, therefore, does she so vehemently condemn "defining particular phenotypes deemed racially ambiguous as 'multiracial'" with all this disparaging talk invoking dubious "science"?
It really doesn't. Brazil is an example of a racialist society that has long acknowledge the "living proof" of multiracial people that U.S. society firms divides into White and non-White, with subsequent categorization depending on the era or section of the country. Racism is alive and well in Brazil, so much so that the country is considering taking the same controversial, race-based "affirmative actions" to combat it.
Though he did appear to have read my last post Winwinkel is alternately shadowboxing with an imagined ODR enthusiast and building a strawman argument with misnterpreted rhetorical cues. One would be hard pressed to find a population that isn't multiracial, but not to locate people who are racially ambiguous. I simply object to the characterization of selected phenotypes as "multiracial" and others as "monoracial." It's nonsensical to me. Whether people acknowledge being multiracial or not, it's clear that many who support using the term don't believe there should be "preferred" populations for which the term is reserved. Others perhaps disagree but the basis for disagreement shouldn't be scientific.
Winwinkel wrote:
If Sagascend opposes racism it would behoove her to learn that three generations and more of U.S. Jim Crow segregation was bent on stopping "multiracial people" from being born.
This comment doesn't make much sense and is too trite to be taken seriously. Attempts from racists to stop the "race-mixing" have failed consistently and miserably for centuries. If only we could appropriate some of Warren Buffet's billions for mass admixture tests and let the healing begin.
Winwinkel wrote:
Today, "black" Americans apparently still feel alarmed merely acknowledging the evidence of history flowing in their own veins. Can Sagascend comment on this evidence of lingering shame? How can the ongoing social enforcement of the hypodescent-ODR "rules" not block dissipating the "mixing"-shame?
Please see the thread on this interesting phenomenon of African American denial of mixed ancestry for some perspectives on your question. I'm not feeling much like a spokesperson for "the race" today.
Winwinkel wrote:
Sagascend's word-choice of "sensationalize" tells us much about her fear of change -- which I call honor finally coming to blending -- although Sagascend vulgarly still calls it "race-mixing." Many in the scientific community do seem to stumble over their own feet trying to be politically correct or please the "Black Powers that Be," passing now for final authorities on all subjects "racial."
Please feel free to provide evidence that I am "fearful of change" and what that change would be. Do take notice of the fact that the ubiquitous use of quotations around a phrase used by a poster might indicate that the term is used outside of one's everyday lexicon. Honestly.
Winwinkel wrote:
Sagascand has not explained why the U.S. needs to census "mono-races," which Americans are thoroughly indoctrinated to recognize on sight; but she interjects contemporary "science's" confused flight away from all ideas "racial" as Sagascend's screen for blocking vision of multiracial "phenotypes"? Why the shame, fear of "mixing"? Isn't that racist?
Again, who is Winwinkel actually responding to? There are too many dubious claims in this line of questioning for me to address with sincerity so I'm not going there because scorn-ridden sarcasm is the only viable option in dealing with this outrageous strawman. I will be happy to respond to Winwinkel when I can see an indication that what I actually said is being considered.
Posted: Fri 01 Dec 2006 07:37 Post subject: Re: What "science" is puzzled by multiracial?
Just in this thread alone --
sagascend wrote:
It is society's job to impose on the individual, a notable feature of life within a human collective. Clearly there is no fundamental immorality associated with the imposition of racial labels ....
sagascend wrote:
The internal identity crises in our binary racial system seems to come from situating relevant parts of self-identity on both sides.
sagascend wrote:
I do not approve of the imposition of racial identities. I simply stated that imposition on individual freedom is often the "price of admission" for participating in it.
sagascend wrote:
Strict racialists have and can embraced [sic] "intermediate" racial labels, but whiteness is still supposed to be off-limits to the person of African descent. [¶] What is it about African American ancestry in particular that seems to bring out the magnifying glass?
sagascend wrote:
I don't see the difference between Heather Locklear, Jennifer Beals and Jada Pinkett. I do wonder why no one questions Heather's apparent decision to be a White person when she is multiracial?
sagascend wrote:
What I mean is, racial labels are not immoral a priori. Neither is racial categorization. It quite possible [sic] to impose racial labels that are accurate.
sagascend wrote:
Treating multiracial people as exceptional specimens, as the Great Brown Hopes, does nothing to minimize racialism. To me it only encourages it because we still believe that "purity" is "blending" when people with divergent phenotypes have children.
sagascend wrote:
Brazil is an example of a racialist society that has long acknowledge [sic] the "living proof" of multiracial people that U.S. society firms [sic] divides into White and non-White, with subsequent categorization depending on the era or section of the country.
sagascend wrote:
One would be hard pressed to find a population that isn't multiracial, but not to locate people who are racially ambiguous. I simply object to the characterization of selected phenotypes as "multiracial" and others as "monoracial."
sagascend wrote:
I will be happy to respond to Winwinkel when I can see an indication that what I actually said is being considered. [Sagascend's bold.]
I read Sagascend as a defender of traditional racial identities (census one-box). She inconsistently attacks anyone's suggestion for a public figure to come out multiracial, by temporarily wrapping herself in the banner of a defender against any imposed identity. However, Sagascend the rest of the time is an apologist for imposed classifications (i.e., "monorace" ones which don't cross the "color line"). Sagascend will not lift a finger to oppose the "one drop rule," although she understands and can explain its functions, purifying "white" by stigmatizing "black." Seeking effective cure for racism, I reminded Sagascend that "three generations and more of U.S. Jim Crow segregation was bent on stopping 'multiracial people' from being born." She answered, "This comment doesn't make much sense and is too trite to be taken seriously."
Posted: Fri 01 Dec 2006 15:12 Post subject: Re: What "science" is puzzled by multiracial?
winwinkel wrote:
Just in this thread alone --
sagascend wrote:
It is society's job to impose on the individual, a notable feature of life within a human collective. Clearly there is no fundamental immorality associated with the imposition of racial labels ....
sagascend wrote:
The internal identity crises in our binary racial system seems to come from situating relevant parts of self-identity on both sides.
sagascend wrote:
I do not approve of the imposition of racial identities. I simply stated that imposition on individual freedom is often the "price of admission" for participating in it.
sagascend wrote:
Strict racialists have and can embraced [sic] "intermediate" racial labels, but whiteness is still supposed to be off-limits to the person of African descent. [¶] What is it about African American ancestry in particular that seems to bring out the magnifying glass?
sagascend wrote:
I don't see the difference between Heather Locklear, Jennifer Beals and Jada Pinkett. I do wonder why no one questions Heather's apparent decision to be a White person when she is multiracial?
sagascend wrote:
What I mean is, racial labels are not immoral a priori. Neither is racial categorization. It quite possible [sic] to impose racial labels that are accurate.
sagascend wrote:
Treating multiracial people as exceptional specimens, as the Great Brown Hopes, does nothing to minimize racialism. To me it only encourages it because we still believe that "purity" is "blending" when people with divergent phenotypes have children.
sagascend wrote:
Brazil is an example of a racialist society that has long acknowledge [sic] the "living proof" of multiracial people that U.S. society firms [sic] divides into White and non-White, with subsequent categorization depending on the era or section of the country.
sagascend wrote:
One would be hard pressed to find a population that isn't multiracial, but not to locate people who are racially ambiguous. I simply object to the characterization of selected phenotypes as "multiracial" and others as "monoracial."
sagascend wrote:
I will be happy to respond to Winwinkel when I can see an indication that what I actually said is being considered. [Sagascend's bold.]
I read Sagascend as a defender of traditional racial identities (census one-box). She inconsistently attacks anyone's suggestion for a public figure to come out multiracial, by temporarily wrapping herself in the banner of a defender against any imposed identity. However, Sagascend the rest of the time is an apologist for imposed classifications (i.e., "monorace" ones which don't cross the "color line"). Sagascend will not lift a finger to oppose the "one drop rule," although she understands and can explain its functions, purifying "white" by stigmatizing "black." Seeking effective cure for racism, I reminded Sagascend that "three generations and more of U.S. Jim Crow segregation was bent on stopping 'multiracial people' from being born." She answered, "This comment doesn't make much sense and is too trite to be taken seriously."
Should I take Sagascend seriously?
George
This is what you should take seriously:
1. My second request to provide evidence for your claims that I am "fearful of change." I am particulary interested in your preternatural ability to discern my state of mind and inability to accept "change."
2. My first request for you to provide evidence that I am an "apologist" for the ODR.
3. An invitation to stop taking various posters, not just me, out of context to position a half-baked argument. This last attempt is particulary lame.
Although I assumed that you are familiar with The Rules because you have been a member of this site much longer than I have, your review is requested. Please review section 3A to understand why I am objecting to your approach to this discussion.
Evidence for #1 and #2 above should be provided within 24 hours, or your posting privileges will be suspended. Acknowledging the futility of proving these claims will also be accepted in lieu of evidence.
Please start a thread in the Site Management forum to debate the ultimatum and suggestions offered. I do not want to derail this discussion further.
Posted: Sat 02 Dec 2006 01:30 Post subject: Multiracial is not adrift "between the real races"
triguy wrote:
winwinkel wrote:
Sagascend's word-choice of "sensationalize" tells us much about her fear of change -- which I call honor finally coming to blending -- although Sagascend vulgarly still calls it "race-mixing." Many in the scientific community do seem to stumble over their own feet trying to be politically correct or please the "Black Powers that Be," passing now for final authorities on all subjects "racial."
Oh, come on. Aren't you putting words into her mouth? How does "sensationalize" equate with her being afraid? Her point is that we multiracial people are mutants or some great evolutionary step for humanity. Mixed-race people are just human beings. There have been mixed-race people for ages as she points out.
And that is the point: I am mixed-race. My mom is mixed-race. My dad is mixed-race. Both of their parents are mixed.
People of different races have been procreating with each other before there were "races."
We aren't freaks to be pointed out. Nor are we ambassadors of some new age.
Mixed-race people are not something out of science fiction or fantasy. Equating any kind of specialness to us only serves to separate and dehumanize us.
Triguy's first objection is to my allegedly "putting words in her mouth" (Maya's), because her staunch resistance to a multiracial identifier makes me think she fears change. (My opinion.) Moreover, she transmuted my arguing that too many endogamous "black"-identified people seem fearful of straying from the ODR-"one drop rule" or express pride in their racial blends, by mischaracterizing me with her own word: "sensationalize." To me this is evidence. Again, this makes her seem to me to be one of the ODR-chilled victims who I said fear change.
Triguy's next objection addresses the merits. Summarizing, it seems his objection to the multiracial identity is fear (!) that it will make himself and other such individuals seem freakish. "[W]e multiracial people are mutants," Triguy declared. I disagree.
First, I did not make you blended or "mixed." That physical situation is your reality, regardless of anyone's state of eyesight or language. My first person style of conversation here actually is directed to all multiracials, not only Triguy who identified himself and his ancestors as all being "mixed race." The notion of multiracial frankly can include all of humanity. I think there is no way to color line anyone out of it, and I like it that way. On the other hand some people do appear clearly biracial or ambiguous. The rest of my address is to them -- those for whom one "minority race"-checkbox is not obviously suitable classification. Triguy wrote as if he is such a person.
Second, it is the ODR which "dehumanizes" you, by leaving you stranded outside of a rigid category -- outside of the stereotypical "races" classified in the U.S.A. Someone might mistakenly think the ODR rescues you by sucking you into the socially lowest "box" checked. However, the ODR and its hypodescent helper polices the sharp color lines bounding named "race"-categories. Consequently the same ODR that seems to kindly throw you its helpful suction hose is actually responsible for your being adrift between the "boxes" to start with. (I.e., the ODR is responsible for the "boxes." It polices their borders. Without the ODR the "boxes" would dissolve, maybe similarly to Brazil.)
Third, the crisp ODR "boxes" (those census categories) "dehumanize" "mixed race" people as if "mutants." (Triguy's choices words.) Multiracials do not fit nicely in one box. Mrs. Susan Graham of Project R.A.C.E. spearheaded a campaign in the 1990s to substitute "multiracial" for "other" as a census identifier. She and her group objected that "Other" is degrading. I support their substituting Multiracial for several additional, I think very substantive reasons. One is that multiracial is capable of being read as fusion together of our one human race (of its "nuances" -- my term), which does not throw into the pot a new noun-category. I see this new adjective focus on "racial" as a language pathway leading out toward deconstructing the check-box noun "races" -- flawed for their falsely alleging biological "difference." This is because racial, with its modifier adjective held strictly to one human race unifies our species (this can be stipulated). Its advantage is not striking us all mute, dumb, and "color blind," unable reasonably to describe what anyone looks like. It allows reasonable racial discourse couched in language pertinent to one human race. The noun "races" should drop out of the census, at least, because they are too divisive by implying immutable differences on separating color lines.
Fourth, Triguy mentioned that there have been "mixed race" people for ages." True. The U.S. endogamous "races" caste system with its designed inequality is ages old, too. To me the longevity of human blending is unpersuasive. The existing system stuffs people into pigeon-hole boxes. Multiple check-boxes is defamatory for making apparent "hybrids." This also is a fraud. The government practices hypodescent on respondents. I attack the "boxes" and their supporting ODR, not the human lives that increasingly fail to fit in "boxes." I read Multiracial as an honorable category outside of these "boxes." If Triguy wishes to tell the world that Multiracial actually is an ancient identity rather than a new "evolutionary step for humanity," he has my full support.
I clearly see fear of change. I see it in Sagascend and Triguy's objections, in their words "sensationalize," "mutant," and "dehumanize." I see historical bases for it in the Jim Crow experience (in my adult memory: when the ODR had felony prosecution backing; when it could get children excluded from "white" schools, when "colored" schools were drafty barns and marriages against the ODR could mean prison). Not that long ago America was at war with "mixed blood" hidden under "Colored," the ODR's shielding euphemism. I understand that it takes courage for some to discard the ODR's shield. But the alternative is to stand increasingly exposed, even "dehumanized," as one racially unclassifiable in a changing world.
George
Posted: Sun 03 Dec 2006 18:02 Post subject: Re: Multiracial is not adrift "between the real races"
winwinkel wrote:
triguy wrote:
winwinkel wrote:
Sagascend's word-choice of "sensationalize" tells us much about her fear of change -- which I call honor finally coming to blending -- although Sagascend vulgarly still calls it "race-mixing." Many in the scientific community do seem to stumble over their own feet trying to be politically correct or please the "Black Powers that Be," passing now for final authorities on all subjects "racial."
Oh, come on. Aren't you putting words into her mouth? How does "sensationalize" equate with her being afraid? Her point is that we multiracial people are mutants or some great evolutionary step for humanity. Mixed-race people are just human beings. There have been mixed-race people for ages as she points out.
And that is the point: I am mixed-race. My mom is mixed-race. My dad is mixed-race. Both of their parents are mixed.
People of different races have been procreating with each other before there were "races."
We aren't freaks to be pointed out. Nor are we ambassadors of some new age.
Mixed-race people are not something out of science fiction or fantasy. Equating any kind of specialness to us only serves to separate and dehumanize us.
Triguy's first objection is to my allegedly "putting words in her mouth" (Maya's), because her staunch resistance to a multiracial identifier makes me think she fears change. (My opinion.) Moreover, she transmuted my arguing that too many endogamous "black"-identified people seem fearful of straying from the ODR-"one drop rule" or express pride in their racial blends, by mischaracterizing me with her own word: "sensationalize." To me this is evidence. Again, this makes her seem to me to be one of the ODR-chilled victims who I said fear change.
Triguy's next objection addresses the merits. Summarizing, it seems his objection to the multiracial identity is fear (!) that it will make himself and other such individuals seem freakish. "[W]e multiracial people are mutants," Triguy declared. I disagree.
First, I did not make you blended or "mixed." That physical situation is your reality, regardless of anyone's state of eyesight or language. My first person style of conversation here actually is directed to all multiracials, not only Triguy who identified himself and his ancestors as all being "mixed race." The notion of multiracial frankly can include all of humanity. I think there is no way to color line anyone out of it, and I like it that way. On the other hand some people do appear clearly biracial or ambiguous. The rest of my address is to them -- those for whom one "minority race"-checkbox is not obviously suitable classification. Triguy wrote as if he is such a person.
Second, it is the ODR which "dehumanizes" you, by leaving you stranded outside of a rigid category -- outside of the stereotypical "races" classified in the U.S.A. Someone might mistakenly think the ODR rescues you by sucking you into the socially lowest "box" checked. However, the ODR and its hypodescent helper polices the sharp color lines bounding named "race"-categories. Consequently the same ODR that seems to kindly throw you its helpful suction hose is actually responsible for your being adrift between the "boxes" to start with. (I.e., the ODR is responsible for the "boxes." It polices their borders. Without the ODR the "boxes" would dissolve, maybe similarly to Brazil.)
Third, the crisp ODR "boxes" (those census categories) "dehumanize" "mixed race" people as if "mutants." (Triguy's choices words.) Multiracials do not fit nicely in one box. Mrs. Susan Graham of Project R.A.C.E. spearheaded a campaign in the 1990s to substitute "multiracial" for "other" as a census identifier. She and her group objected that "Other" is degrading. I support their substituting Multiracial for several additional, I think very substantive reasons. One is that multiracial is capable of being read as fusion together of our one human race (of its "nuances" -- my term), which does not throw into the pot a new noun-category. I see this new adjective focus on "racial" as a language pathway leading out toward deconstructing the check-box noun "races" -- flawed for their falsely alleging biological "difference." This is because racial, with its modifier adjective held strictly to one human race unifies our species (this can be stipulated). Its advantage is not striking us all mute, dumb, and "color blind," unable reasonably to describe what anyone looks like. It allows reasonable racial discourse couched in language pertinent to one human race. The noun "races" should drop out of the census, at least, because they are too divisive by implying immutable differences on separating color lines.
Fourth, Triguy mentioned that there have been "mixed race" people for ages." True. The U.S. endogamous "races" caste system with its designed inequality is ages old, too. To me the longevity of human blending is unpersuasive. The existing system stuffs people into pigeon-hole boxes. Multiple check-boxes is defamatory for making apparent "hybrids." This also is a fraud. The government practices hypodescent on respondents. I attack the "boxes" and their supporting ODR, not the human lives that increasingly fail to fit in "boxes." I read Multiracial as an honorable category outside of these "boxes." If Triguy wishes to tell the world that Multiracial actually is an ancient identity rather than a new "evolutionary step for humanity," he has my full support.
I clearly see fear of change. I see it in Sagascend and Triguy's objections, in their words "sensationalize," "mutant," and "dehumanize." I see historical bases for it in the Jim Crow experience (in my adult memory: when the ODR had felony prosecution backing; when it could get children excluded from "white" schools, when "colored" schools were drafty barns and marriages against the ODR could mean prison). Not that long ago America was at war with "mixed blood" hidden under "Colored," the ODR's shielding euphemism. I understand that it takes courage for some to discard the ODR's shield. But the alternative is to stand increasingly exposed, even "dehumanized," as one racially unclassifiable in a changing world.
George
Frank, mistyped and it was supposed to be "multiracials are not mutants..."
So, my apologies for helping you to infer the wrong message. In the context of the rest of my response, in which I lament trying to make mixed-race people somehow special, I think the "not" makes more sense.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
