Posted: Mon 06 Aug 2007 17:48 Post subject: I am officialy changing my identity to Black
As this board claims that anyone has the right to change their identity at any time. Any comment on me or anyone else identifying as a light skinned Black will be a violation of the rules as I will take offense to it. Capish??
Posted: Mon 06 Aug 2007 18:41 Post subject: Re: I am officialy changing my identity to Black
Salsassin wrote:
As this board claims that anyone has the right to change their identity at any time. Any comment on me or anyone else identifying as a light skinned Black will be a violation of the rules as I will take offense to it. Capish??
I believe the above statment is an attempt to indirectly violate the following rules:
3.7 Once a Dispute is Revealed to be a Semantic Difference, End It. Many disputes turn out to be mere differences in word usage between the parties. Once this is apparent, you must end the dispute immediately.
3.8 Once a Dispute is Revealed to be Faith-Based, End It. Many disputes turn out to be non-falsifiable on one party’s part. If either party says that no evidence could ever convince him/her to change his/her mind, you must end the dispute immediately.
4.5 Do Not Antagonize Other Members. Be nice. The moderators have the discretionary authority to suspend your posting privilege if you habitually antagonize or insult other members, even if you stay within the letter of these rules. For example, if you often get into flame wars, or habitually express yourself in ways that others find objectionable, or deliberately goad others into overreacting, the forum moderator can suspend your posting privilege even if you have broken no specific rule. This rule (be nice) is enforced at the moderator’s discretion because overly sensitive people often complain for trivial reasons that they were antagonized, insulted, or goaded.
Posted: Mon 06 Aug 2007 19:27 Post subject: Re: I am officialy changing my identity to Black
Salsassin wrote:
As this board claims that anyone has the right to change their identity at any time. Any comment on me or anyone else identifying as a light skinned Black will be a violation of the rules as I will take offense to it. Capish??
So are you officially saying that the identity described below is no longer true for you? Have you told your parents and brother yet?
Quote:
International Stories
Whiteness: Description or Identity?
Posted: Sun 21 May 2006 00:30 Post subject: Re: white guilt: reloaded
Salsassin wrote:
DEPENDS ON REGION, TIME, GROUP ETC. IN THE USA MANY PEOPLE GO BY QUANTUMS, OTHERS BY ODR, OTHERS BY VISIBLE APPEARANCE.
I thought I answered it quite succinctly here. I added on this thread another aspect. Ethnic affiliation. If you are of ambiguous looks but with no set ethnic affiliations except for the mainstream, then you will be seen as blanco. I was seen as blanco by many. My father may see himself as one as well as mestizo. Never asked him. Growing up first generation mixed between Peruvian Creole culture and American 'White'. I saw my culture's mixed identity much more succinctly and thus never saw it as a 'white' one per se. It had too many indigenous and african influences, so I always so it as creolized as far back as I can remember. I may describe some of my cousins as blancos and others as not based on appearance, but i do not see them as part of the blanco culture (predominantly European influence and ancestry) I see my father's ethnicity as a combination of serrano and criollo culture) So I see my self as half White half Creole, but predominantly Creole as I was raised in my father's coastal family, not in my mother's White culture. Like many Blacks who are first generation mixed, but are raised in the black culture and see themselves as Black and not as mixed.
Posted: Mon 06 Aug 2007 19:32 Post subject: Identity
How interesting that you consider Anatole Broyard's white identity illegitimate because family members of origin didn't claim it (at least permanently). Now you say that you are "black" when none of your relatives identify as "black." Curious.
Quote:
Issues for Biracial Americans
Anatole Broyard The White Creole
[quote="Salsassin"]
mulattoprince wrote:
@ Charles byrd
Quote:
Charles said: I'm not so sure about that. There's a difference between overtly identifying as white and passively allowing others to believe you are. I don’t call myself white, but people take me for that every day.
He did identify as white himself, he told his sister (Lorraine) that he resolved (decided) to pass as white so he could become a writer and not be labeled a negro writer. He said identifing black then he would be forced to write about black topics only. He even got angry when people asked him did he have black ancestry and would start arguing with them and denying he had black ancestry.
The fact that he himself stated that he was "passing" as white, means he was adopting the identity and was not raised in it. In fact he passed himself off as Jewish I beleive. That doesn't make him Jewish either. He obviously was raised in an identity that was not "White." I believe his family identified as "coloured". His daughter was raised as "White" so she would not be passing. If anything now she is "passing" as "Black" as that is not the ethnic identity she was raised in. Of course there is an assumption that you cannot switch ethnicities if you fully immerse yourself in it. So long as that group accepts you as one of their own, you are a member of that group. So his daughter would be Black if that is what she now fully identifies as. As far as Anatole, I would say overall he adopted a White identity, but the reason why I would not consider him WHite, is because he never fully embraced it by showing he felt he had to hide who he was and pretended to be Jewish, and hid his family. If he truly felt he was white, he would have had no such need to hide his family. Obviously he felt at least a part of him did not qualify and needed to be hid.
Salsassin wrote:
Not claiming he wasn't a victim of the one drop rule. A rule that forced him to choose to hide one side of himself. I am just stating that he truly wasn't White because he himself was conscious of his identity being mixed. The causes of his struggle wit
Posted: Mon 06 Aug 2007 20:01 Post subject: Re: Identity
Beauty wrote:
lol this a bit silly
Ah you are getting my point.
Powell wrote:
How interesting that you consider Anatole Broyard's white identity illegitimate because family members of origin didn't claim it (at least permanently). Now you say that you are "black" when none of your relatives identify as "black." Curious.
My great grandmother did indeed claim Blackness and I have seen the light of Frank's claim that you should be able to identify as whatever you choose regardless of how your family identified anyway. As such, Anatole could claim all he wants (but was still hiding a part of himself and thus passing) just like I can claim whatever I want although without hiding anything at this moment so therefore not passing (contrary to when I let people assume I am White on purpose.)
Posted: Fri 10 Aug 2007 12:30 Post subject: Re: I am officialy changing my identity to Black
Salsassin wrote:
As this board claims that anyone has the right to change their identity at any time. Any comment on me or anyone else identifying as a light skinned Black will be a violation of the rules as I will take offense to it. Capish??
You may be conflating three different issues: rules violation connected to your self-identity, commenting versus criticizing, and giving offense.
First, you imply the solipsism that rule 2.6 (Do not criticize anyone’s choice of ethnic or “racial” self-identity) is not enforced unless you personally switch your ethnic self-identity to Black. This is not the case. The rule is enforced regardless of how you personally self-identify.
Second, you imply that the rule forbids commenting on someone's choice of self-identity. It does not. It forbids criticism, not comment.
Third, you imply that the underlying reason for the rule is to avoid giving offense--that if criticism does not give offense, it is allowed or that if non-criticism gives offense it is forbidden. Not so. Whether someone feels offended is irrelevant to rules enforcement. Although someone's taking offense might cause them to complain about a rules violation that might otherwise go unnoticed by the moderators, it is the perpetrator's act versus the rule that guides moderator judgment, not the mere fact that someone has taken offense. You can see why this must be so. Virtual all of the topics in the technical and scholarly forums give offense to someone, due to the mere exposure of the topic. People's angst over the discussion of sensitive subjects is irrelevant to site rules enforcement.
Posted: Fri 10 Aug 2007 16:01 Post subject: "Black" identity v. nonblack
"There is no such thing as a light-skinned black" is a rhetorical statement designed to make people stop and think. You'll note that many political movements have statements designed mainly to grab people's attention. It has nothing to do with "forcing" anyone to be anything (as if I had that power). Reactions I've had from people who are not black-identified to the first sentence are interesting as in ,"Well....uh...uh..they have the black culture?" As you know, there are no specific cultural standards for
being "black" (Note the number of "blacks" who claim that some people are "black" without knowing it) and many of those labeled "black" are culturally indistinguishable from your average middle-class "white." The reaction suggests to me that people of good will are trying to make sense of a racist hypodescent rule (endorsed by many blacks and liberal whites who claim to be against racism) and are sensible of the contradiction. Why would anti-racists endorse a racist rule (forced hypodescent or the ODR), they seem to reason, if there were not something legitimate about it? Culture? Biology? The term "light-skinned black" is very confusing to people (and many folks, especially the black-identified, are very upset if the subject is discussed; others are mainly uneasy) and seems to suggest that some essentially racist ideas about intermixture between "whites" and "blacks" are correct. There is a great deal of danger in the idea and this should be rationally discussed.
remember me from the other board? I'm so glad to be here, BTW.
If you change your identity to Black, more power to you. I know of many whites who have adopted Black cultural identity and seem to fit it more than, ah-eh, me. Well, in certain facets of Black cultural identity, they seem to.
However, I thought you were more for embracing/identifying with the total sum of your ancestry/heritage - not just one aspect of it.
I look at it like this, there are Blacks who can pass for white that identify as being Black. What's the difference of Whites who can pass for White identifying as Black, especially if they are culturally rooted and embraced within Black identity. And some of these 'Whites' are more based in Black culture than some Blacks. Not to mention, who knows, they too may have African ancestry.
And if they become officially Black and are met with opposition, the question can be asked "What, Black people don't look like me?"
Its imposes racialists standards, directly implying that "real" black people can only be a certain color
Actually, they do (come in a small range of colors, types) if we look at original SSAs.
Quote:
Speakers of Bantu languages (part of the Niger-Congo language family) are the majority in southern, central and east Africa proper. But there are also several Nilotic groups in East Africa, [Aethopids] and a few remaining indigenous Khoisan ('San' or 'Bushmen') and Pygmy peoples in southern and central Africa, respectively. Bantu-speaking Africans also predominate in Gabon and Equatorial Guinea, and are found in parts of southern Cameroon and southern Somalia. In the Kalahari Desert of Southern Africa, the distinct people known as the Bushmen (also "San", closely related to, but distinct from "Hottentots") have long been present. The San are physically distinct from other Africans and are the indigenous people of southern Africa. Pygmies are the pre-Bantu indigenous peoples of central Africa.
Quote:
.....The Tuareg and other often-nomadic peoples are the principal inhabitants of the Saharan interior of North Africa. Nubians are a Nilo-Saharan-speaking group (though many also speak Arabic), who developed an ancient civilization in northeast Africa.
Some Ethiopian and Eritrean groups (like the Amhara and Tigrayans, collectively known as "Habesha") speak Semitic languages. The Oromo and Somali peoples speak Cushitic languages, but some Somali clans trace their founding to legendary Arab founders. Sudan and Mauritania are divided between a mostly Arabized (not arabs) north and a native African south (although the "Arabs" of Sudan clearly have a predominantly native African ancestry themselves). Some areas of East Africa, particularly the island of Zanzibar and the Kenyan island of Lamu, received Arab Muslim and Southwest Asian settlers and merchants throughout the Middle Ages and in antiquity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africans
Or are you saying real African Blacks (unmixed, non-berber, non-Arab) also come in light-skin (high yellow, beige, white ) AND with light eyes (blue/green/hazel eyes) AND with non kinky hair (straight/wavy non-coarse hair) types?
Its imposes racialists standards, directly implying that "real" black people can only be a certain color
Actually, they do (come in a small range of colors, types) if we look at original SSAs.
Quote:
Speakers of Bantu languages (part of the Niger-Congo language family) are the majority in southern, central and east Africa proper. But there are also several Nilotic groups in East Africa, [Aethopids] and a few remaining indigenous Khoisan ('San' or 'Bushmen') and Pygmy peoples in southern and central Africa, respectively. Bantu-speaking Africans also predominate in Gabon and Equatorial Guinea, and are found in parts of southern Cameroon and southern Somalia. In the Kalahari Desert of Southern Africa, the distinct people known as the Bushmen (also "San", closely related to, but distinct from "Hottentots") have long been present. The San are physically distinct from other Africans and are the indigenous people of southern Africa. Pygmies are the pre-Bantu indigenous peoples of central Africa.
Quote:
.....The Tuareg and other often-nomadic peoples are the principal inhabitants of the Saharan interior of North Africa. Nubians are a Nilo-Saharan-speaking group (though many also speak Arabic), who developed an ancient civilization in northeast Africa.
Some Ethiopian and Eritrean groups (like the Amhara and Tigrayans, collectively known as "Habesha") speak Semitic languages. The Oromo and Somali peoples speak Cushitic languages, but some Somali clans trace their founding to legendary Arab founders. Sudan and Mauritania are divided between a mostly Arabized (not arabs) north and a native African south (although the "Arabs" of Sudan clearly have a predominantly native African ancestry themselves). Some areas of East Africa, particularly the island of Zanzibar and the Kenyan island of Lamu, received Arab Muslim and Southwest Asian settlers and merchants throughout the Middle Ages and in antiquity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africans
Or are you saying real African Blacks (unmixed, non-berber, non-Arab) also come in light-skin (high yellow, beige, white ) AND with light eyes (blue/green/hazel eyes) AND with non kinky hair (straight/wavy non-coarse hair) types?
sometimes, the languages spoken by sub-Saharan Africans of darker skin hues, along with their cultural traditions, can offer insight in possible racial mixing of distant generations with other groups.
I don't totally buy the notion, for example, that a notably 'Black' ethnic group speaks, say Arabic, practices Islam and has Persian artistic and cultural traditions, hasn't also inherited the bloodlines of other ethnic groups the pre-existed them.
That's like Blacks in the US Speaking English claiming to be 100% Black and nothing else. The truth of miscegenation is masked with that insinuation. This seems to always occur when entire populations become ethnically mixed by force. The cultural and linguistic fusions/adaptations are acknowledge, but not the bloodlines.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
