Posted: Tue 19 Jun 2007 02:59 Post subject: Do U.S. Blacks act as if they were traumatized?
[On June 19, 2007 at 02:03 UCT, this thread was split from Rejecting Blackness because Blacks suffer discrimination in the "Issues for Biracial Americans" forum. It was moved to the "History of the U.S. Color Line" forum as a non-advocacy discussion of African-American group psychology. Seven hours later, it was moved again, this time to the "Site Management" forum because a participant fell that the scholarly forum was too restricting. Having run its course, on June 20, 2007 at 16:22 UCT, it was moved a third time back to the "Issues for Biracial Americans" forum. It now holds the record as the most migratory thread ever. -- FWS]
High School Teacher wrote:
I don’t accept your premise that to be black in America is among the worst things imaginable.
It is not one of the worse things imaginable and no one has claimed that it is. But if you deny that Blacks suffer discrimination in the U.S. today you are either a liar or a fool.
High School Teacher wrote:
Can you understand why this might be insulting to many blackamericans?
No. In all honesty I cannot. Why on earth should they feel insulted? U.S. Blacks are not at fault for suffering discrimination. It is White society that is to blame because "White society" by definition is the mainstream consensus that condones bigotry and racism.
The attitude you espouse seems remarkably similar to that of a person who has been traumatized by violence. The after-effect of terror, shock, pain, and humiliation is to blame yourself. And so whenever someone openly brings up that you were suffered violence you re-live it, then you deny it, then you act insulted that anyone should even suggest that you were traumatized.
Last edited by fwsweet on Fri 22 Jun 2007 03:21; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 02 Feb 2007 {Posts: 255 } Location: California
Posted: Tue 19 Jun 2007 03:28 Post subject:
Frank--
Quote:
It is not one of the worse things imaginable and no one has claimed that it is. But if you deny that Blacks suffer discrimination in the U.S. today you are either a liar or a fool.
Your "But if ..." statement is completely without foundation. As this recent of post of mine in the thread shows:
Quote:
On the other hand, while I may not react with “extreme hostility” toward individuals that reject blackness for purely utilitarian or selfish reasons, I do raise an eyebrow of curiosity, if not outright suspicion. If, for example, an Adam Clayton Powell look-alike had chosen to self-identify as white even though he was raised in a black cultural context, for the simple reason he wanted to escape the hardship that his fellow blackamericans would have to endure, I would regard that person as a sell-out. Though I should admit that I would have a lot more sympathy for someone who made this choice in the harshest areas during the Jim Crow era than an individual who made that decision in 2007. There isn’t nearly enough oppression of black folk to justify a opportunistic move like that today, IMO.
So obviously I am not saying, nor have I ever suggested, that blacks do not suffer discrimination. The premise I question is the notion that racial discrimination is so rampant that blacks would have to be fools to want to be black. That is a preposterous proposition on its face!
1. Yes, yes. I know. In your opinion, there is not enough racism against U.S. blacks today to justify a mixed person rejecting Blackness to avoid it. Clearly, I think that you are wrong, but I see no point in debating it. Apparently, we agree that there is some racism. And we agree that whatever racism there is can be avoided by mixed people who lack a definite African phenotype. But we disagree that the choice to avoid the racism by exploiting a European phenotype belongs to each individual. I consider freedom of choice for any reason and no matter how effective to be an undeniable right of each individual. You do not and call them sell-outs. I really do not see what more there is to say. You have re-iterated your position more than enough to get it across. Let's move on.
2. Your claim that it is preposterous to say that "blacks would have to be fools to want to be black," begs the question so egregiously that I question your integrity in making it. No one has ever suggested such a ridiculous straw man as "blacks would have to be fools to want to be black." The suggestion was that Whites (who have chosen to be White despite some African ancestry) would be fools to self-identify as Black. If you truly believe that a White person with some invisible African ancestry who chooses to be White (for whatever reason, whether you approve or not) is really "a Black not wanting to be Black," then you are definitely in the wrong website.
The notion that a White person with undetectable African ancestry is "really Black not wanting to be Black" despite their avowed self-identity is called the One-Drop Rule. This site gets its name from its mission of exploring this bizarre U.S. pathology, not from advocating it nor from demanding its enforcement. Surely you must have suspected this by now.
Last edited by fwsweet on Tue 19 Jun 2007 06:14; edited 1 time in total
The suggestion was that Whites (who have chosen to be White despite some African ancestry) would be fools to self-identify as Black. If you truly believe that a White person with some invisible African ancestry who chooses to be White (for whatever reason, whether you approve or not) is "really a black not wanting to be Black, then you are definitely in the wrong website.
Yes, these words are going into the white mulatto bible as well. Thank god for reason or we would all be doomed.
Joined: 02 Feb 2007 {Posts: 255 } Location: California
Posted: Tue 19 Jun 2007 20:45 Post subject:
Quote:
2. Your claim that it is preposterous to say that "blacks would have to be fools to want to be black," begs the question so egregiously that I question your integrity in making it. No one has ever suggested such a ridiculous straw man as "blacks would have to be fools to want to be black." The suggestion was that Whites (who have chosen to be White despite some African ancestry) would be fools to self-identify as Black. If you truly believe that a White person with some invisible African ancestry who chooses to be White (for whatever reason, whether you approve or not) is really "a Black not wanting to be Black," then you are definitely in the wrong website.
Frank, the above statement is so fallacious I don’t know where to begin.
Let me begin with your insinuation about my integrity, which was completely off-the-wall. If you think my question was enough bring my integrity into the equation then what of your repeated and unsubstantiated claims that I am trying to deny a person's choice to reject blackness; or, the very peculiar decision to move an inherently political discussion about identity from a place where political advocacy is allowed to a place where it is strictly forbidden? It is one thing to attempt to depoliticize the discussion, but it's quite another to serve it up on a platter of gratuitous ad hominem (e.g. ". . . if . . . then you are a liar or fool" and the most recent installment). This is classic Radio Talk Show host tactics; excoriate and inpugn the caller’s motives all the while your finger is firmly on the mute button.
As to the substance of your statement, that I erected a straw man, it also suffers from severe incoherence and revisionism (the pot calling the kettle black?). I will not question your integrity(I do not want to be silenced!), even though I have ample grounds to do so. I will just show you that you are wrong.
Quote:
And why shouldnt they? Why should a group which has had to fight against the worst racism not become enraged when some one perceived by whites to be black then peddles the same arguments that whites have used to justify racism. If any group used that argument they would get it.--Caribj
And your reply:
Quote:
But that is simply a lie! No one here, certainly not Zack, has suggested that they reject a Black self-identity because Blacks are inferior in some way. No one. What they said, and what I wrote, and what you accurately quoted was, "I reject Blackness because being Black jeopardizes my livelihood and that of my spouse and children." . . .
Caribj’s reply clearly suggests his understanding of the question is not what you would have me believe (White who happen to have some SSA ancestry). And your response gives us no indication that you are restricting the discussion to Whites rejecting blackness.
In a post to me and caribj:
Quote:
“Personally, I find it easier to grasp the opposite argument: that anyone who lives in the 'States and voluntarily chooses to self-identitfy as Black when she/she does not have to is a fool.”
Anyone means anyone who could possibly say they are black and reasonably be perceived as such.
You also mention dark skin Puerto Ricans who may reject blackness to avoid oppression. They are certainly not “Whites who happen to have SSA ancestry”. In many cases, you can say they are black Puerto Ricans who happen to have European ancestry.
The point is your contention that this discussion is about “Whites” rejecting blackness is untenable.
If you think my question was enough bring my integrity into the equation then what of your repeated and unsubstantiated claims that I am trying to deny a person's choice to reject blackness;
My claim is substantiated by your openly calling such people "sell-outs." Do you now retract this hateful epithet that you hurled at people exercising their freedom of ethnic choice?
High School Teacher wrote:
or, the very peculiar decision to move an inherently political discussion about identity from a place where political advocacy is allowed to a place where it is strictly forbidden?
I hoped for a serious discussion of group pychology. You apparently want a pissing contest. Okay, I have moved the thread to Site management. Piss away.
High School Teacher wrote:
It is one thing to attempt to depoliticize the discussion, but it's quite another to serve it up on a platter of gratuitous ad hominem (e.g. ". . . if . . . then you are a liar or fool" and the most recent installment).
The statement was, "if you deny that Blacks suffer discrimination in the U.S. today you are either a liar or a fool." Are you now admitting that this applies to you?
High School Teacher wrote:
excoriate and inpugn the caller’s motives all the while your finger is firmly on the mute button.
Yeah. I own the site. You knew that when you came here. If you think that site rules stifle dissent or are unfair, please leave now.
High School Teacher wrote:
Quote:
And why shouldnt they? Why should a group which has had to fight against the worst racism not become enraged when some one perceived by whites to be black then peddles the same arguments that whites have used to justify racism. If any group used that argument they would get it.--Caribj
And your reply:
Quote:
But that is simply a lie! No one here, certainly not Zack, has suggested that they reject a Black self-identity because Blacks are inferior in some way. No one. What they said, and what I wrote, and what you accurately quoted was, "I reject Blackness because being Black jeopardizes my livelihood and that of my spouse and children." . .
Sir, you are a bald-faced liar and I tell you that to your face. The actual verbatim text of the exchange is:
caribj wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
[But if anyone says, "I reject Blackness because being Black jeopardizes my livelihood and that of my spouse and children," then some African Americans go nuts.
And why shouldnt they? Why should a group which has had to fight against the worst racism not become enraged when some one perceived by whites to be black then peddles the same arguments that whites have used to justify racism.
Click here to see the untouched original. Caribj's hysterical accusation that I "peddle the same arguments that whites have used to justify racism" was in direct immediate and proximate response to my hypothetical "I reject Blackness because being Black jeopardizes my livelihood and that of my spouse and children," with no intervening text. You lie, sir. You lie deliberately and knowingly.
High School Teacher wrote:
Caribj’s reply clearly suggests his understanding of the question is not what you would have me believe (White who happen to have some SSA ancestry). And your response gives us no indication that you are restricting the discussion to Whites rejecting blackness.
Are you really saying that a thread titled "Rejecting Blackness because Blacks suffer discrimination" gave no indication of being about rejecting blackness? Give me a break!
High School Teacher wrote:
Anyone means anyone who could possibly say they are black and reasonably be perceived as such. You also mention dark skin Puerto Ricans who may reject blackness to avoid oppression. They are certainly not “Whites who happen to have SSA ancestry”.
And that is the nub of our dispute. I accept and defend freedom of ethnic choice. Since Zachary repeatedly claimed to self-identify as White, I consider him White. Since 90 percent of Puerto Ricans check off "White" then I consider them White. No questions asked, no hesitation, no mealy-mouthed weasel words in passive voice like "reasonably perceived as such." If someone says that they are White, then they are White, and I will do whatever it takes to defend their right to be White, especially against those who try to enforce a one-drop rule by intimidation and hate.
You, on the other hand, if you think that someone has African ancestry, then you do not accept that they are White, no matter what they say or want. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But I find your arrogance repugnant. That you should come here to this site, this site!, and try to enforce the one-drop rule by intimidation and calling people sell-outs, I find nothing less than astonishing.
You also mention dark skin Puerto Ricans who may reject blackness to avoid oppression. They are certainly not “Whites who happen to have SSA ancestry”. In many cases, you can say they are black Puerto Ricans who happen to have European ancestry.
My interpretation of this debate is exactly what yours is. If some one is mainly white, looks white and has little or no black ancestry he is white if he wants to be. No argument there. My question to him would be why would he want to say that he is black if it accounts for a minute part of his ancestry?
This has nothing to do with any one forcing him to black. Clearly his reason for rejection blackness (to those who would demand that he shouldnt) would be a validation of what most of his ancestry is, not because he thinks that he loses out if he claimed a black identity.
[. Since 90 percent of Puerto Ricans check off "White" then I consider them White. .
Do 90% of the Puerto Ricans living on the US mainland check "white". I thought that at least as many checked "other" as checked "white", what ever their interpretation of what "other"means.
It will really be interesting if one could test a hypothesis that reclassifying oneself as nonblack if one would otherwise be perceived as being black based on appearance results in a better outcome. It is known that based on data provided by Lewis Mumford Institute in their Black Hispanic report that black Hispanics do no better than do other blacks and do worse than other Hispanics. This is despite being slightly better educated (11.7 years of schooling vs 10.5 for Hispanics on the whole). They do significantly worse than do West Indians despite having slightly lower average years of education.
If some one is mainly white, looks white and has little or no black ancestry he is white if he wants to be. No argument there.
The argument is that I defend a persons right to freedom of ethnic choice whether or not he is "mainly white" in your opinion, whether or not he has little or lots lots of "black ancestry" in your opinion, and regardless of his reasons. Again, that you (like HST) should come to this site, this site!, to advocate enforcement of the one-drop rule is truly amazing.
caribj wrote:
My question to him would be why would he want to say that he is black if it accounts for a minute part of his ancestry?
My answer to you is that it is none of your business. It is his absolute right and you cannot morally second-guess him. No matter how you perceive his "race."
caribj wrote:
It will really be interesting if one could test a hypothesis that reclassifying oneself as nonblack if one would otherwise be perceived as being black based on appearance results in a better outcome.
If you want to pursue this, spin it off as a thread. This topic is about over.
Gentlemen, we are spinning our wheels here. HST accuses me of stifling debate but this is getting silly. I will never waver from defending freedom of choice. You two will never waver from advocating the ODR. Unless either of you comes up with something other than simply re-iterating your defense of the ODR within the next couple of hours, this discussion is over.
Where do I advocate ODR? I have stated that I have no problem with people self defining as other than black if they do so without denigrating others, either explicitly, or implicitly by not questioning the biased views of others.
Where you said, "If some one is mainly white, looks white and has little or no black ancestry he is white if he wants to be." This clearly implies that if someone is not mainly white but still looks white and has little or no black ancestry, then he is Black, like it or not. It clearly implies that if some one is mainly white and looks white but has lots and lots of black ancestry, then he is Black, like it or not. It clearly implies that... this is puerile.
caribj wrote:
I have stated that I have no problem with people self defining as other than black if they do so without denigrating others, either explicitly, or implicitly by not questioning the biased views of others.
Yes. But when confronted with a real case, you bail out and say that only "if some one is mainly white, looks white and has little or no black ancestry he is white if he wants to be." The word for saying one thing but acting another when the time comes is "hypocrisy."
If one is mainly white but has a little black ancestry doesnt that make him black according to ODR rules? Clearly I stated exactly the opposite. My point about whites who have minimal black ancestry was in response to some one who specifically spoke about such a person.
Real cases. Devil Child, and kalima. I debated when DevilChild when he stated that his desire not to be black was because of his need to avoid being stigmatized, and then to make his point he hurled many insults saying we are the rejectbin of America and we ought to disappear.
When he modified his position saying that his identity springs from his background, as is the case with kalima, I modified my position and told him so.
At the end of the day people can self define any way they want. They do not need to insult others to justify their actions.
I made no statement about people who maybe predominantly black having to be black. Why do you inject this?
You also mention dark skin Puerto Ricans who may reject blackness to avoid oppression. They are certainly not “Whites who happen to have SSA ancestry”. In many cases, you can say they are black Puerto Ricans who happen to have European ancestry.
My interpretation of this debate is exactly what yours is. If some one is mainly white, looks white and has little or no black ancestry he is white if he wants to be. No argument there. My question to him would be why would he want to say that he is black if it accounts for a minute part of his ancestry?
This has nothing to do with any one forcing him to black. Clearly his reason for rejection blackness (to those who would demand that he shouldnt) would be a validation of what most of his ancestry is, not because he thinks that he loses out if he claimed a black identity.
I have to agree with this one. We are long past the days were most coherent people would throw a conniption because they find out you have some African ancestry way back. You still see some morons, but on average it would not risk your livelihood, and would at best be an interesting topic of conversation.
Joined: 02 Feb 2007 {Posts: 255 } Location: California
Posted: Wed 20 Jun 2007 01:22 Post subject:
Frank--
Quote:
My claim is substantiated by your openly calling such people "sell-outs." Do you now retract this hateful epithet that you hurled at people exercising their freedom of ethnic choice?
First, you're being silly. My referring to people as sell-outs is no more hateful--in fact, not even close--than some of the blanket castigations of blackamericans (think TMK) that you apparently are very comfortable with. So why am I asked to retract my sell-out comment, which wasn’t directed at any particular person, while you have bent over backwards to accommodate genuinely hateful comments about black people? Indeed, why "sell-out" and not "self-hating"? Did you ask TMK to retract his hateful comments at blackamericans? I smell hypocrisy. And it stinks!
Second, you asked why some blackamericans are enraged by other SSA-appearing folk rejecting blackness out of opportunism. I simply answer your question—some blackamericans (like me for one) see this as selling out. I even went so far as to imply that I am no more hostile to a person who rejects blackness than I am to a person who rejects Krispy Crème donuts. I dislike the behavior/decision; nothing more, nothing less. Next time you ask a question make sure you tell me what you want to hear.
Quote:
Yeah. I own the site. You knew that when you came here. If you think that site rules stifle dissent or are unfair, please leave now
The site rules per se aren’t the problem, Frank. It's like the "Matrix" in here sometimes. You make the rules. You're the 'decider'.
Quote:
Sir, you are a bald-faced liar and I tell you that to your face. The actual verbatim text of the exchange is . . .
That extra verbiage doesn’t corroborate your basic claim or assertion. Hence, it is a non-sequitor. I’m not the liar. You are.
Quote:
Caribj's hysterical accusation that I "peddle the same arguments that whites have used to justify racism" was in direct immediate and proximate response to my hypothetical "I reject Blackness because being Black jeopardizes my livelihood and that of my spouse and children," with no intervening text. You lie, sir. You lie deliberately and knowingly.
This is the equivalent of “liar, liar, pants on fire”. Calling me a liar until you’re blue in face doesn’t make it so. In fact, frothing liar over and over is moot at this point because carbj has already confirmed that he interpreted the central question in exactly the same way I did. I also think Lady Marmalade response to your statement validates caribj and my interpretations of the central question, that is, the discussion is really about people who have enough SSA ancestry to be peceived as black (according to ODR) yet reject blackness in favor of whiteness.
Quote:
Are you really saying that a thread titled "Rejecting Blackness because Blacks suffer discrimination" gave no indication of being about rejecting blackness? Give me a break!
Frank, you’re losing composure. Take a deep breath and re-read that statement. It is abundantly clear that the issue is not what is being rejected but by whom and why.
caribj wrote:
If a Latino rejects blackness because he feels that his life will be better he will be called self hating better believe me. ... People of mixed ancestry should accept ALL of what they are, not just some if they dont want a self hating label.
Who says rejecting Blackness is rejecting all who one is? Rejecting African ancestry if they had some would be doing that. Or rejecting Black ethnic ancestry if they had that.
Quote:
High School Teacher wrote:
If, for example, an Adam Clayton Powell look-alike had chosen to self-identify as white even though he was raised in a black cultural context, for the simple reason he wanted to escape the hardship that his fellow blackamericans would have to endure, I would regard that person as a sell-out.
Hmmmmmm. Not sure I agree. If he turned his back on his relatives and didn't try to help them then he would be a sell out. But improving his own lot when there are restrictive rules on one group would be improving the situation one body at a time. In today's world, such oppressive rules don;t exist, so it would only be social context. Again, I would be more interested in seeing if he rejects his family over how he self-identifies.
Quote:
Frank wrote;
Personally, I find it easier to grasp the opposite argument: that anyone who lives in the 'States and voluntarily chooses to self-identitfy as Black when she/she does not have to is a fool.
I disagree with this perception as well. Many choose to identify as Black voluntarily because they feel family ties, empathy and relate to the lives of those that are Black. Many Europeans indigenized and lived among the Natives becoming one with them. Even when Natives were doomed by opression these Europeans sided with them? Were they fools? Or were they people who stood by what they felt morally was right. What about those that stood against the Nazis in the height of their power and chose to identify with the opressed? Foolishness is relative Yes, not the best idea as far as self-preservation goes in the short term, but in many other ways it is very fulfilling and if you survive, you stood by what you identified with instead of running from it. Another good example is The Last Samurai by John Cruise.
Again, it is more about what reasons lead a person to affiliate with an identity or shy away from it and what they do with the consequences of their affiliation/identification to help those they should care about that marks them as fools, sell outs, or self hating to me.
My referring to people as sell-outs is no more hateful--in fact, not even close--than some of the blanket castigations of blackamericans (think TMK) that you apparently are very comfortable with.
I am neither comfortable nor uncomfortable with DevilChild's rants because they are irrelevant to the issue at hand: freedom of choice. Devil child has supoorted freedom of choice (the issue at hand). You call people who choose "for the wrong reason" in your opinion "sell-outs." Your slur may be no more hateful that DevilChild's rants, but your slur is to the point while his rants are irrelevant. You explicitly reject freedom of choice, the issue at hand.
High School Teacher wrote:
So why am I asked to retract my sell-out comment, which wasn’t directed at any particular person, while you have bent over backwards to accommodate genuinely hateful comments about black people? Indeed, why "sell-out" and not "self-hating"? Did you ask TMK to retract his hateful comments at blackamericans? I smell hypocrisy. And it stinks!
I never asked you to retract your opposition to freedom of choice (by calling those who reject Blackness "sell-outs.") You said that you did not oppose freedom of choice (by calling those who reject Blackness "sell-outs"), so I asked if you had retracted the slur. Okay. You had not retracted it. Fine. You still oppose freedom of choice by calling those who choose "sell-outs." Why should I have asked DevilChild to retract anything? I have no interest in his off-topic rants. My interest is solely the topic at hand: freedom of choice and those who oppose it by calling those who choose "sell-outs."
High School Teacher wrote:
The site rules per se aren’t the problem, Frank. It's like the "Matrix" in here sometimes. You make the rules. You're the 'decider'.
Holy smokes! You're right! You have just given me an idea! (1) People who oppose freedom of choice by calling those who choose their ethnicity "sell-outs" or "self-hating" are personally repugnant to me. (2) I doubt that anyone who opposes freedom of choice by calling those who choose their own ethnicity "sell-outs" or "self-hating" can contribute at the intellectual level that I strive for in this site. (3) I own the site and so, as you have just reminded me, I make the rules.
Given (1), (2), and (3) I propose a new rule that explicitly demands support of freedom of choice and explcitly forbids members' opposing freedom of choice. Any member who calls those who choose their own ethnicity "sell-outs" or "self-hating" will be immediately suspended.
That settles the debate in the simplest possible way! Those who cannot participate without opposing freedom of choice will leave and only those who are willing to defend freedom of choice will remain. Damn! Why did I not think of that before? Thank you, High School Teacher. I owe you one. You have my gratitude.
LOL. Then I would be immediately suspended because i think those White kids that desperately try to be "Black" to the point of emulating anything and everything Black no matter what sub culture it comes from are self hating. I just saw a white kid on the bus with those stupid grills and I saw someone who was insecure in himself so tried to emulate what he percieved as tough or what was popular.
LOL. Then I would be immediately suspended because i think those White kids that desperately try to be "Black" to the point of emulating anything and everything Black no matter what sub culture it comes from are self hating. I just saw a white kid on the bus with those stupid grills and I saw someone who was insecure in himself so tried to emulate what he percieved as tough or what was popular.
Let's talk about it in its thread. I am preparing a formal rules-change proposal right now. I think the secret is to distinguish between mere expression of distaste and actually advocating coercion. To paraphrase the famous quotation attributed to Voltaire, "I disaprrove of your choice of ethnicity but I will defend to the death your right to choose it.
LOL. Then I would be immediately suspended because i think those White kids that desperately try to be "Black" to the point of emulating anything and everything Black no matter what sub culture it comes from are self hating. I just saw a white kid on the bus with those stupid grills and I saw someone who was insecure in himself so tried to emulate what he percieved as tough or what was popular.
Let's talk about it in its thread. I am preparing a formal rules-change proposal right now. I think the secret is to distinguish between mere expression of distaste and actually advocating coercion. To paraphrase the famous quotation attributed to Voltaire, "I disaprrove of your choice of ethnicity but I will defend to the death your right to choose it.
Very true. I think HST would be in Voltaire's camp. He would see the person as a sell out to his culture, but i don't think he would try to enforce the identity on them.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
