The Study of Racialism

DChapman · Posted: Fri 03 Dec 2004 16:49 Post subject: Article I wrote for my local paper

Here is an article I wrote for my local paper, The Poughkeepsie Journal in February 1999. It's not as detailed as I would have liked it to be because there were space limitations. I received commendations from many. Though I was told that the local black activists were upset with me. Oh well, it wasn't like that I was being offensive and didn't have the evidence to back up what I was saying. I wish I had heard of IV at that time, it wasn't until around 2001 until I heard stumbled upon IV and TMA.

In school I was always told that the U.S. Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education (1954) over turned the Courts decision in Plessy v. Furguson (1896), which stated that separate but equal facilities for Blacks was constitutional, that the Jim Crow laws of the south did not violate the Constitution. The Court did in fact do that. But let me explain what the Court really did in Plessy v. Furguson.
In 1892, Homer Plessy was arrested for being in the "white" section of a railroad car. Plessy was an octoroon, or in today's politically correct terms an "African-American" who passed for white. An octoroon is an old plantation term for a person who is 7/8 white European and 1/8 black African ancsestry. Plessy's case did not argue the validity of Jim Crow laws. Plessy argued that since his appearence was white, that he was in fact white and entitled to be in the white section of the car. The court took "judicial notice" that a "Negro" is any person known to have any kind of Black ancestry. I think at the time, many southern states stated that 1/128 Black ancestry was enough to define a person as Black. So the Court decision here really validated the racial classification laws of the U.S. which in my opinion, makes these types of laws the most racist in the world. Even apartheid South Africa had a much different racial classification structure. This decision has not been overturned.
In 1983, Susie Phipps of Louisiana, sued to have her race changed from the "colored" on her birth certificate to white. In 1970, Louisiana passed a law stating that a "Negro" was a person to be of 1/32 Black ancestry. The state determined that Phipps was 3/32 Black, therefore, legally a Black person. The case went to the Supreme Court in 1986 where her appeal was "dismissed for want of a substantial federal question". Hence, the main decision of Plessy remains intact today.
I have heard arguments about adding a bi or multi racial category on the Census for 2000. This would not be the first time for this. Between 1850 and 1920, the Census had a mulatto racial category. But it was used at the descretion of the man taking the Census. Case in point: My great grandfather Chapmon's 2 older brothers were listed as black in the 1870 Census in Virginia. In 1880, the 2 older brothers as well as my great-grand father and his other sisters and brothers were listed as mulatto's. Same parents, different Census enumerator. As for the parents who were former slaves, the father was listed as black and mother was mulatto for both Census. So I think the multi racial category will give a more accurate representation of who we are. This is not trying to deny anything, it is rather inclusive. I agree with Tiger Woods: to label him an "African-American" excludes his mother who is Asian. This "African-American" thing has gone too far. It is not a race. It could be an ethnic group contained within the Black community. My mom's mother was from Panama, but the PC would label her "African-American" which is not correct. If Sammy Sosa was from the States without a Spanish surname, he would be an "African-American", not a Hispanic. A lot of Hispanics would fall into that category. Hispanic is not a race either. It is a cultural identity. Just look at the Hispanics who rallied behind Sammy: Some were white, some black, most mixed. But they were united behind their man, not on the basis of color, but on the basis of culture. Too bad America is not like that. You see how complicated this is? If we are going to label ourselves, we should be correct, not politically correct. Otherwise we should all drop the labelings and just be HUMANS!!!!!!!!

Liana · Guru Joined: 30 Nov 2004 {Posts: 352 }

Hi Dean

Nice Article! Thanks for sharing it!

B

Powell · Guru Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 2379 }

This is a good article, but I would note that the Supreme Court never said that "one drop" makes a "Negro." They said that racial definition was up to the states. That's what the Supreme Court said again by refusing to hear the Phipps case. Coward's way out, I would say.

I would have describe "octoroon" as 19th century American rather than limited to "plantations."

____________________

DChapman · Posted: Wed 08 Dec 2004 19:48 Post subject:

Thanks Liana and AD.

AD I see your point, the Supreme Court in essense left this up to the states which constitutionally was the correct thing to do. Unlike, however, the Lawrence case from 2003.

I posted this article over at www.africanamerica.org and a lot of the people there were offended. I even put a blurb in how successful my great grand father was despite being the son of slaves, who sent his 3 kids to college. My great aunts who both passed away the year the article came out, said he would have oppossed reparations...even for himself. Wow the ad hominem attacks came flying!!! It seems as though they want to only hear the victimization things...too bad!!! Razz

gera2561 · Posted: Fri 03 Jun 2005 08:00 Post subject:

That is a really good article. I have thought about the african american part. I always thought that it was more of an ethinicity based on history and culture than on race, though I personally prefer black-american. Anyways, I agree with your points.