I'm from Muncie and I know Dr. Gregory H. Williams. Why is it your website slams him? I don't understand your intentions on dishonoring this man, unless your jealous of him and what he has made of his life.
He has 0 African features, that's my problem with him. At least say your 'mixed'. I bet if he went around saying my Grandma was 'Black' and nothing else, people will still see a White man.
His 'fame & fortune' came about because, unlike most 'White Blacks', he choose to make a big deal about it. At least most others as White as him who 'wanted to be Black' married Black. What is his purpose, anyway? His kids legacy?
I can 'pass as Black', but he cannot, ever. His book recounted his life, but his struggles ended circa 1980. He is playing to the 'audience' and promoting ODR. I bet he will never visit Africa seeking his people.
If he had been raised in a Black community, I could care less what his phenotype was. If he grew up accepted in that community, so be it. I know of at least one person with African phenotypes obvious in his face that identified as White. Fine with that as well. Except for the aprt of the mom lying to the child of his ancestry.
If he had been raised in a Black community, I could care less what his phenotype was. If he grew up accepted in that community, so be it. I know of at least one person with African phenotypes obvious in his face that identified as White. Fine with that as well. Except for the aprt of the mom lying to the child of his ancestry.
I thought Williams was raised in a black community after his parents divorced and he moved to live with his paternal grandmother.
He has 0 African features, that's my problem with him. At least say your 'mixed'. I bet if he went around saying my Grandma was 'Black' and nothing else, people will still see a White man.
His 'fame & fortune' came about because, unlike most 'White Blacks', he choose to make a big deal about it. At least most others as White as him who 'wanted to be Black' married Black. What is his purpose, anyway? His kids legacy?
I can 'pass as Black', but he cannot, ever. His book recounted his life, but his struggles ended circa 1980. He is playing to the 'audience' and promoting ODR. I bet he will never visit Africa seeking his people.
Okay, aren't you imposing a white identity on him against his choice? By declaring himself, that doesn't mean that Williams is denying that he's mixed at all. In the context of American society, being a "black" American does not imply racial purity. Many people in my family don't have "black" features other than varying shades of brown skin, but they consider themselves "black" Americans of mixed ancestry.
The fact that Williams' struggles ended when he escaped the racist ignorance of adolescent life doesn't change his internal composition, his sense of self. Moreover, Williams was successful prior to the publication of his book.
Gregory Howard Williams - Life on the Color Line: The True Story of a White Boy Who Discovered He Was Black
If he is "black" then there are hardly any black people in America. Why?Because with as little black blood this man has, there are many black people with the same amount of white blood, so they're white.
I long for the day when a black person comes out with a book saying: The True Story of a Black Boy who Discovered He was White!!!!
How many people would back up that person?? How many would agree with that?? I'll tell you: No one.
So why do people back Mr. Williams?? I wish someone would write a book on the injustice of that.
Because it fits into our social beliefs as to how race is constructed. People understand someone "finding out" that they're black because of a g-grandmother far better than someone "finding out" they're white because of a g-grandmother.
On record. That's why I find him at least odd. It fits into an world of ODR and should be crumbling, not reinforced by those proclaiming that they're black because out of all of their white ancestors in the last century a small handful have been black. Why would someone be jealous of ideas they find semi-archaic?
This argument that the ODR is reinforced when individuals such as Williams choose a Black identity is similar to the argument that some feminists make about women who choose to raise their children while living solely on the husband's income. Some feminists believe that freedom for women means freedom of choice for all women. Other believe that no women who does not generate income by using her talents, contributing more than the rearing of her children, is truly free.
I compare folks who believe that the ODR cannot be diminished or eliminated unless white-looking Blacks choose a White identity, and mixed-looking Blacks (the majority of the Black population) eschew a Black identity, to feminists who see oppression/sexism in the actions of individual women who do not work outside of the home. To me, this stance misses the point: Proscribed identities (or gender roles) remove individual choice, but is that the case if an individual is choosing a proscribed identity in full awareness of his/her other options?
I believe that freedom from representation and acceptance of society for the "contrary" personal identities of individual would indicate, among other things (i.e., no stigma on B-W intermarriage amoing upper middle to upper class White familes; higher rates of Black exogamy; weakened influence of the "races of color" in setting the political agenda that Whites are shamed into advocating but many probably secretly resent) that the ODR is no longer an influential dimension of the American psyche.
To me, as long as someone has a problem with the personal identity choices of a Williams, as long as his choices "represent" or reflect a larger social problem inviting critique, we are not "over it" whatsoever. Not even the critics.
This argument that the ODR is reinforced when individuals such as Williams choose a Black identity is similar to the argument that some feminists make about women who choose to raise their children while living solely on the husband's income. Some feminists believe that freedom for women means freedom of choice for all women. Other believe that no women who does not generate income by using her talents, contributing more than the rearing of her children, is truly free.
I compare folks who believe that the ODR cannot be diminished or eliminated unless white-looking Blacks choose a White identity, and mixed-looking Blacks (the majority of the Black population) eschew a Black identity, to feminists who see oppression/sexism in the actions of individual women who do not work outside of the home. To me, this stance misses the point: Proscribed identities (or gender roles) remove individual choice, but is that the case if an individual is choosing a proscribed identity in full awareness of his/her other options?
I believe that freedom from representation and acceptance of society for the "contrary" personal identities of individual would indicate, among other things (i.e., no stigma on B-W intermarriage amoing upper middle to upper class White familes; higher rates of Black exogamy; weakened influence of the "races of color" in setting the political agenda that Whites are shamed into advocating but many probably secretly resent) that the ODR is no longer an influential dimension of the American psyche.
To me, as long as someone has a problem with the personal identity choices of a Williams, as long as his choices "represent" or reflect a larger social problem inviting critique, we are not "over it" whatsoever. Not even the critics.
Sagascend I'm not joking when I say, after thinking about it, I think you're right. It shouldn't be about "correct" identity but self-identity, how we choose to be. If he chooses black, however odd I see it, that shouldn't be my business and I think I'll eat my words on that point.
This argument that the ODR is reinforced when individuals such as Williams choose a Black identity is similar to the argument that some feminists make about women who choose to raise their children while living solely on the husband's income. Some feminists believe that freedom for women means freedom of choice for all women. Other believe that no women who does not generate income by using her talents, contributing more than the rearing of her children, is truly free.
I compare folks who believe that the ODR cannot be diminished or eliminated unless white-looking Blacks choose a White identity, and mixed-looking Blacks (the majority of the Black population) eschew a Black identity, to feminists who see oppression/sexism in the actions of individual women who do not work outside of the home. To me, this stance misses the point: Proscribed identities (or gender roles) remove individual choice, but is that the case if an individual is choosing a proscribed identity in full awareness of his/her other options?
I believe that freedom from representation and acceptance of society for the "contrary" personal identities of individual would indicate, among other things (i.e., no stigma on B-W intermarriage amoing upper middle to upper class White familes; higher rates of Black exogamy; weakened influence of the "races of color" in setting the political agenda that Whites are shamed into advocating but many probably secretly resent) that the ODR is no longer an influential dimension of the American psyche.
To me, as long as someone has a problem with the personal identity choices of a Williams, as long as his choices "represent" or reflect a larger social problem inviting critique, we are not "over it" whatsoever. Not even the critics.
Agree completely. People should be able to declare themselves whatever they want without having to worry that some racial Stalinist will attempt to destroy them for their choice. Calling Williams "white boy," for instance, is odious and disrespectful of his life experiences and person choices. Instead of attacking him as a supporter of the ODR, why not respect his life as an individual?
This invidious tendency to adopt group-think and attack people who live their lives differently that the political wishes of others comes off as ultra-hypocritical from mixed-race people who are fighting to be able to self-identify. It leads to an Orwellian mindset where some are more equal than others to define themselves. Others who don't follow the party line are less equal and subject to extreme punishment.
Posted: Mon 29 Jan 2007 08:25 Post subject: Williams and "Choice"
Quote:
sagascend wrote:
This argument that the ODR is reinforced when individuals such as Williams choose a Black identity is similar to the argument that some feminists make about women who choose to raise their children while living solely on the husband's income.
Williams went on "Nightline" saying that he had "no choice" in being "black." Again, the issue is NOT personal choice. A media celebrity like Williams who claims that he has "no choice" but to be "black" is telling others they THEY have "no choice." He is telling "whites" and others of good will that supporting forced hypodescent is the RIGHT thing to do.
Compare the lionization of Williams with the demonization of the late Anatole Broyard, whose choice to be "white" is constantly denounced as immoral.
Posted: Mon 29 Jan 2007 14:36 Post subject: Re: Williams and "Choice"
Powell wrote:
Quote:
sagascend wrote:
This argument that the ODR is reinforced when individuals such as Williams choose a Black identity is similar to the argument that some feminists make about women who choose to raise their children while living solely on the husband's income.
Williams went on "Nightline" saying that he had "no choice" in being "black." Again, the issue is NOT personal choice. A media celebrity like Williams who claims that he has "no choice" but to be "black" is telling others they THEY have "no choice." He is telling "whites" and others of good will that supporting forced hypodescent is the RIGHT thing to do.
Compare the lionization of Williams with the demonization of the late Anatole Broyard, whose choice to be "white" is constantly denounced as immoral.
Why is one man responsible for the personal choices of millions of people? Did he say that "since I believe I have no choice in my self-identification, everyone listening to me who is a white person of known African descent must also be Black?"
I am getting this vision of the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld ("No choice forrrr YOU White-Black Man!"). Is this really what Williams is all about?
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 29 Jan 2007 16:15 Post subject:
Quote:
Why is one man responsible for the personal choices of millions of people? Did he say that "since I believe I have no choice in my self-identification, everyone listening to me who is a white person of known African descent must also be Black?"
I am getting this vision of the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld ("No choice forrrr YOU White-Black Man!"). Is this really what Williams is all about?
All kidding aside, I think what is implied is that when someone like Williams who IMO does not look like he has even a trace of sub Saharan African ancetsry says he had 'no choice' but to identify as "Black" this emboldens the "Black" elite One Dropists and their "White" liberal allies.
"See, Gregory Howard Williams idenitfies as black, and he has less "black" in him than you do, so why do you identify as "mixed" instead of "Black". Why don't you just be "Black" and be done with it???"
I have actually seen this written on a forum that I used to post on, but another name was used in the example.
Why is one man responsible for the personal choices of millions of people? Did he say that "since I believe I have no choice in my self-identification, everyone listening to me who is a white person of known African descent must also be Black?"
I am getting this vision of the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld ("No choice forrrr YOU White-Black Man!"). Is this really what Williams is all about?
All kidding aside, I think what is implied is that when someone like Williams who IMO does not look like he has even a trace of sub Saharan African ancetsry says he had 'no choice' but to identify as "Black" this emboldens the "Black" elite One Dropists and their "White" liberal allies.
"See, Gregory Howard Williams idenitfies as black, and he has less "black" in him than you do, so why do you identify as "mixed" instead of "Black". Why don't you just be "Black" and be done with it???"
I have actually seen this written on a forum that I used to post on, but another name was used in the example.
I think this is the point AD is trying to make.
I'm not being deliberately obtuse about this, I do understand the point that you and AD are making with Williams. What I am pushing back on is this:
The attribution of superhuman powers of ONE man to define others is dangerous. Even if Williams declared on national TV that no person of African descent is hereby allowed to be anything but "Black" where is the evidence that the thousands of White people who know they are of African descent would start checking "Black" instead of "White" and joining the NAACP? How many lives would his statement really influence? I'd argue, assuming his target audience even knows who he is or values his opinion, that there are many more counternarratives to choose from. I have to agree with Triguy that it is up to others in the media spotlight to present a counterpoint. Complaining gets one nowhere, it's all about action.
Every adult person makes his/her own decisions, and we have much more influential sources for racial identity than a pseudo-celebrity. Part of fixing what is broken on any level (personal, community, national) in the race politics game is the acknowledgement that we each have choices. What separates complainers/people who throw up their hands in despair and become embittered and ineffective in the face of their "opposition," and effective change agents, is the ability to present viable options when others have decided that there are none.
Enough of the blame game and demonizing "liberals and Black elites." Although the blame game is an effective tactic against the "White establishment," these folks do not have the collective guilt to respond to this tactic coming from multiracialists. Re-education of the racialized masses is the key. This site is a prime example of how influential facts and counternarratives can be.
Posted: Tue 30 Jan 2007 02:51 Post subject: Re: Williams and "Choice"
Powell wrote:
Quote:
sagascend wrote:
This argument that the ODR is reinforced when individuals such as Williams choose a Black identity is similar to the argument that some feminists make about women who choose to raise their children while living solely on the husband's income.
Williams went on "Nightline" saying that he had "no choice" in being "black." Again, the issue is NOT personal choice. A media celebrity like Williams who claims that he has "no choice" but to be "black" is telling others they THEY have "no choice." He is telling "whites" and others of good will that supporting forced hypodescent is the RIGHT thing to do.
Compare the lionization of Williams with the demonization of the late Anatole Broyard, whose choice to be "white" is constantly denounced as immoral.
Wasn't Williams referring to his childhood when he was relabeled as "black"? Moreover, I'm not sure I've seen or read of Williams as being lionized. Williams has, however, been recognized for shedding light on his story and difficulties he endured growing up.
Moreover, Williams was no celebrity prior to the publication of his memoirs. Indeed, Williams is hardly a "celebrity." How many Americans could name Williams based on his picture or name alone? But this leads me to a question: Why doesn't Williams have a right to tell his story? This was his life as he lived it. Because Williams doesn't make the life choice that others wish he had doesn't make him wrong.
Sagascend I'm not joking when I say, after thinking about it, I think you're right. It shouldn't be about "correct" identity but self-identity, how we choose to be. If he chooses black, however odd I see it, that shouldn't be my business and I think I'll eat my words on that point.
With luv,
Bd
To a degree. There should be some logical basis to identity. Be it exposure and upbringing, or what not. [/quote]
Imagine a kid who decided he is Black because we all came from Africa.
To me there should be an ethno-social reason for identity. What I do beleive is that you can't be imposed to identify with an ethnicity just because you look it.
Gregory Howard Williams - Life on the Color Line: The True Story of a White Boy Who Discovered He Was Black
If he is "black" then there are hardly any black people in America. Why?Because with as little black blood this man has, there are many black people with the same amount of white blood, so they're white.
I long for the day when a black person comes out with a book saying: The True Story of a Black Boy who Discovered He was White!!!!
How many people would back up that person?? How many would agree with that?? I'll tell you: No one.
So why do people back Mr. Williams?? I wish someone would write a book on the injustice of that.
I have been reading over the book, and I am starting to see what he is talking about. I think AD Powell has taken the man way out of context and so is German Chocolate.
In his book, he has decribed himself as White, Nigger, Half-Caste, Mulatto, etc. Obviously he understands his mixed status. But in his growing up in Muncie, Mixed meant you were still Black. So in Muncie he really did not have a choice. Sure, now he does have the choice, but his identity has already been made. He identifies as Black.
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 {Posts: 283 } Location: Akron, Ohio
Posted: Thu 01 Feb 2007 19:00 Post subject:
I read Williams' book in 1996 and, unless my recall isn't there, I have to side with this:
'' But in his growing up in Muncie, Mixed meant you were still Black. So in Muncie he really did not have a choice. Sure, now he does have the choice, but his identity has already been made. He identifies as Black.''
So what this means to me is, given this rapid transition to the biracial/mixed-race position in the past few years, that same position has a tendency to ignore the political climate from many, many years ago.
So when Deutsche Chocolate says: ''If he is "black" then there are hardly any black people in America. Why?Because with as little black blood this man has, there are many black people with the same amount of white blood, so they're white.'' I think this maneuvers context to an unneccessary position: context says appearance. The blood factor can be dismissed.
''I long for the day when a black person comes out with a book saying: The True Story of a Black Boy who Discovered He was White!!!!
How many people would back up that person?? How many would agree with that?? I'll tell you: No one.''
The above paragraph was written as comedy with emotional content no doubt.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
I bet if he went around saying my Grandma was 'Black' and nothing else, people will still see a White man.
