Joined: 11 May 2005 {Posts: 84 } Location: New York
Posted: Sun 29 Apr 2007 17:56 Post subject: Re: "Racial" Definitions
fwsweet wrote:
LMartin wrote:
Unlike North America where one drop of black blood makes you black, in Latin America it is one drop of white blood makes you mixed. Not white, but mixed. Even more strangely, Latinos do not have a mixed-race identity. Theirs is an ethnic (as in language-based) identity. So Latinos are not likely to become upset at the idea that they are mixed. They are more likely to just admit it and move on. What they are more likely to become upset about is the idea that they are not mixed, thereby giving them no claim to the language basis of the identity. “Purity” would be permissible only for Spanish heritage, as this is the source of the language identity.
That is very wise and insightful. My only quibble, based on my own family and friends, is that while purity of Spanish language and cultural traits is revered, purity of Spanish blood is disdained. My grandparents, uncles and aunts vehemently hated Spaniards (at least, they said they did).
Frank, what about your mother who you admitted (somewhere on this site) would not even entertain the idea of being mixed? I don't doubt that your uncles hated Spaniards. But did that hatred include unmixed Spanish descended Puerto Ricans? My guess is that purity of Spanish blood would be disdained only when it disdains a Puerto Rican identity.
Posted: Sun 29 Apr 2007 18:05 Post subject: Re: "Racial" Definitions
LMartin wrote:
what about your mother who you admitted (somewhere on this site) would not even entertain the idea of being mixed?
She has no problem with our family's Native American ancestry. Indeed, her mother-in-law (my paternal grandmother) was Mexican. My mom just refuses to consider the possibility of African blood. Sort of like Omar. Still, we will be going to PR in June to visit with her, so I will check it out again and let you know.
LMartin wrote:
I don't doubt that your uncles hated Spaniards. But did that hatred include unmixed Spanish descended Puerto Ricans? My guess is that purity of Spanish blood would be disdained only when it disdains a Puerto Rican identity.
You may be right. Now that I think about it (I was just a kid), the hatred was usually expressed during arguments about Franco.
Joined: 11 May 2005 {Posts: 84 } Location: New York
Posted: Sun 29 Apr 2007 18:25 Post subject: Re: "Racial" Definitions
fwsweet wrote:
LMartin wrote:
Unlike North America where one drop of black blood makes you black, in Latin America it is one drop of white blood makes you mixed. Not white, but mixed. Even more strangely, Latinos do not have a mixed-race identity. Theirs is an ethnic (as in language-based) identity. So Latinos are not likely to become upset at the idea that they are mixed. They are more likely to just admit it and move on. What they are more likely to become upset about is the idea that they are not mixed, thereby giving them no claim to the language basis of the identity. “Purity” would be permissible only for Spanish heritage, as this is the source of the language identity.
That is very wise and insightful.
Thank you, Frank.
I remember, some time ago, on a thread about Dominicans, someone had drawn a comparison between the Anglo and Hispanic one-drop rules. You were taken by it and hoped it might lead to a deeper understanding of the relationship of the two cultures. I had the same reaction as you, and started thinking about it. This is part of that thought process, emphasizing language rather than the vaguer notion of ethnicity. I still don't have all of it. But hopefully someday I can understand the two systems more clearly.
Joined: 13 Mar 2007 {Posts: 261 } Location: Canada
Posted: Wed 02 May 2007 18:17 Post subject:
Sorry I have been silent but I had to step away from this forum for a while to gather my thoughts about all this.
A.D. Powell, there were many things that I did not like about the book but I won't get into those because maybe I don't think that they are important to the bigger picture.
Things the book made me think about, (and continue to think about) were:
-Political strategy, (either conservative, liberal or other) and the tool of racial categorization.
-The most basic unchangable meanings behind the categorizing terms of "black" and "white" and the world-wide affect.
-The psychological impact of racial categorization on the individual and his/her personal pay-offs gained by the idea of racial categories as reality.
Joined: 02 Oct 2007 {Posts: 226 } Location: Seattle
Posted: Tue 09 Oct 2007 03:59 Post subject: IMPETUS
Dear AD:
Prior to beginning your book, I'm wondering what stimulated it's creation as it is a RARELY discussed topic.
Furthermore, I wish to know how "White By Definition" influenced it, if @ all.
Last edited by lsgh on Mon 19 Nov 2007 21:44; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Tue 09 Oct 2007 15:44 Post subject: Re: IMPETUS
LSGH wrote:
Dear AD:
Prior to beginning your book, I'm wondering what stimulated it's creation as it is a RARELY discussed topic. Furthermore, I wisht to know how "White By Definition" influenced it, if @ all.
I respect WHITE BY DEFINITION as the best book written so far on Creoles and their "racial" situation. Virginia Dominguez is professional and fair, without an ax to grind.
Remember that my book consists of essays previously published on "Interracial Voice" with the exception of the lead essay, which was the speech I made to a convention of Melungeons (Southern whites who have discovered and now celebrate their mixed race ancestry):
The "inspiration" for my writings comes from three main sources:
1) The presentation of the "one drop rule" as both racist (originating from whites) and "progressive" (helping and supporting blacks) and the character assassination visited upon "tarbrushed" Anglos and Creoles who have the temerity to claim a nonblack identity (especially a white identity, which is presented by supposed nonracists as the equivalent of reaching for godhood). This presentation of the ODR as good confuses people of good will. If the blacks say it's true, it must be true because blacks can't be racist, right? (Groan) I'd rather see "Birth of a Nation" on TV 24/7 than "Imitation of Life."
2) The Hispanic (and Arab) escape hatch. Carl Degler and other scholars were eager to discuss the "mulatto escape hatch" of Brazil and other countries of Latin America, but there seemed to be a tacit understanding to not talk about the Hispanic "escape hatch" in the USA. We are constantly told by the media and popular histories that "one drop" started in slavery (untrue) and is still enforced by "society" (i.e., "whites"), but no one follows that with "Of course, this does not apply to Hispanics and Arabs." After all, if "white" America is so racist that a "drop" of "black blood" is unacceptable in an otherwise racially and culturally white person, why should it be welcome for intermarriage with "pure" whites if said "drop" (or "bucket") came via Latin America or North Africa and the Middle East? Does Spanish or Arabic remove the supposed genetic inferiority of "black blood" or are we playing a game with unwritten rules? The "one drop rule" of today is supported by American blacks and it seems that those "whites" who go out of their way to publicly support the ODR are the most liberal "whites" who want to please "blacks" (as long as it costs THEM nothing).
3) My readings on the Nazi Holocaust and the history of European Jews in general. The history of European Jews and their efforts to assimilate into European gentile society is very much like the history of "mixed race" people in the European diaspora. Why are we told that the Germans were stupid and evil to consider German Jews a separate and inferior "race" when said Jews looked like Germans and shared the same language and culture when we in the USA are taught the same thing regarding "black blood"? How can Hitler be wrong and the black/liberal white elite right regarding invisible "race" and mystical, all-dominant "blood"? I say they are BOTH WRONG.
Posted: Fri 19 Oct 2007 23:20 Post subject: Re: IMPETUS
LSGH wrote:
Quote:
...a convention of Melungeons (Southern whites who have discovered and now celebrate their mixed race ancestry)
Dear AD:
what was your experience with the melungeons & redbones?...Mine was quite positive.
Quote:
If the blacks say it's true, it must be true because blacks can't be racist, right? (Groan)
Contemporary Blacks ought to be ashamed of themselves! They no longer teach King's dream & most elite Blacks won't be satisfied until they've exacted revenge upon Whites! Meanwhile, they give Black West Africans a "Pass" as if Black West Africans didn't trade them to The White Man...Furthermore, in addition to spreading pervasive Black Sumpremacy myths, they stereotype every MGM(Multi-Generational Mulato) as being a product of rape! SHAME on you, Africa-America, SHAME on you!
Thank You, AD & I look forward to experiencing your scholarship.
My experiences with the Melungeons (2 conventions) and Redbones (one convention) were very positive.
Posted: Wed 02 Jul 2008 19:12 Post subject: Re: "Passing for Who You Really Are"
Powell wrote:
Patience, the book does not address the issues you raised. It advocates an end to the doctrine of white racial purity and its replacement by the concept of multiracial whiteness (which exists in reality but is officially denied). It advocates an end to forced hypodescent and the "one drop" myth, as well as an end to the demonization of part-black whites accused of "passing." The book expresses outrage at the fact that white racial purity and forced hypodescent are, NOWADAYS, pushed on society by people (primarily black organizations and their allies) who present themselves to the public as the judges of what and who is or is not "racist."
I just finished reading this book and wanted to thank Powell for writing it. It approaches race from a perspective that is rarely heard from, let alone allowed to even breathe in America. More importantly and contrary to the status quo, it approaches race from a perspective that actually is socially progressive and antiracist.
I think that most Americans, black and white, do not realize that the one drop rule is something that lives robustly in practice today. And that the current state of divided black and white identity in America is superficially constructed upon both false perceptions about genetic ancestry and overlapping cultural traditions. Worse still, it is defined by a racialism - a falsely determined racialism - that often logically proceeds to racism. I suspect that this racialism is the ultimate source of most racism today in America.
That persons are so quick in taking offense to Powell's polemic gives weight to the strength of the main arguments of the book. This is eloquently exemplified in Powell's letter exchange with Marc Eisen. While I suspect that Eisen perceives himself to be valiantly fighting racism, his emotional outrage shows contempt for reason. How infuriating it is for someone who regards themself to be fighting in the name of antiracism to be revealed to actually be promoting racism.
Joined: 10 Jun 2009 {Posts: 21 } Location: OH, USA
Posted: Thu 11 Jun 2009 02:26 Post subject:
I loved Ms. Powell's book and understood the points she made, although the political aspect wasn't my main interest. I too thank her for writing this book. I have had some very unfortunate experiences lately regarding the genealogy research of my known mixed-race ancestry. Re-reading Ms. Powell's book helped to see me through some tough times. It confirmed the things I was sensing and experiencing were not just in my imagination, or something that was wrong with me. I have since highlighted her book and some of her other writings on a website I created to speak out to those who have tried to stifle me, and who have criticzed me for openly claiming my whiteness and the whiteness of my supposed mulatto, Negro, Black ancestors http://speakingmymind.webs.com. (See Questions & Answers)
My ancestors had no choice and knew nothing else, only whispers, or jokes of being white. This "one drop" rule culture lives on today, but I see it more so in the smaller mixed-race communities across the U.S. People who appear to be white but identify as colored or black, sometimes just to go along with a tradition, not be accused of "passing" , or out of sympathy for their darker counterparts. Some of them are just not educated, or open minded enough to understand the full picture. Passed down opinions or prospectives, personal experiences, resentments and jealousies all come into play. I know because I've seen it and I've heard it ! Being white for me does not exclude other cultures or races...it is more of an appearance issue, and having the right to openly claim what you appear to be.
The accounts on my site may not be as interesting or intellectual as some of the reading you will find here, but it is my personal experience that I am working with, telling it in the best way that I can. My review of Ms. Powell's book can be accessed from my website or view it directly at http://www.amazon.com/review/R3AY5HLA6I82VE/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
Posted: Wed 01 Jul 2009 15:55 Post subject: Jewish comparison to people of African descent
Powell compares people who "look white" and (are)"black" to the racialization of Jews in Nazi Germany. A German Jew was told that he was unfit to call himself German even though his culture and language were German. How is that different from being told that an otherwise white person is "really black"?
Comparing Jews with people of African descent, on the issue of social exclusion, is a perfect example of the same thing, but what you are suggesting is that it is wrong to exclude, an otherwise German person, because he is Jewish; and it is wrong to exclude an otherwise white person, because he has African blood. It may be wrong, but in both instances, the rejection is not based on objective values like, in the case of the Jew, the fact that he reflects the culture and speaks the language, the rejection is based on the belief that there are aspects of Jewish culture and the resultant character of Jews, that is undesirable. Similarly, in the case of a person of African descent who looks white, is not rejected because he looks white. Like the antisemitic, the racist believe that African blood is a contaminant that produces an inferior person, no matter what they look like. Hence the one drop rule. This means, as always, the burden for all people of African descent is to convince the world that Africans are not an inferior people, appropriate for exclusion and abuse.
Finally, if people who are of African descent, but appear white, are white; then people who are of European descent, but who appear black, are black . . . If that becomes the analysis, then the white and brown twin girls, pictured under the subject "black parents with white children," would belong to different races, even though their gene are the same . . .
Posted: Fri 03 Jul 2009 04:02 Post subject: Re: Jewish comparison to people of African descent
Hargrove wrote:
Powell compares people who "look white" and (are)"black" to the racialization of Jews in Nazi Germany. A German Jew was told that he was unfit to call himself German even though his culture and language were German. How is that different from being told that an otherwise white person is "really black"?
Comparing Jews with people of African descent, on the issue of social exclusion, is a perfect example of the same thing, but what you are suggesting is that it is wrong to exclude, an otherwise German person, because he is Jewish; and it is wrong to exclude an otherwise white person, because he has African blood. It may be wrong, but in both instances, the rejection is not based on objective values like, in the case of the Jew, the fact that he reflects the culture and speaks the language, the rejection is based on the belief that there are aspects of Jewish culture and the resultant character of Jews, that is undesirable.
You left out the crucial factor. The Third Reich's Nuremberg Laws were based on the premise that those supposed cultural and character flaws of Jews were HEREDITARY and DOMINANT. The "Aryan Race" would supposedly be wiped out if Jews were allowed to intermarry with "Aryans" and function as equals in German society. Sound like someone we know?
Similarly, in the case of a person of African descent who looks white, is not rejected because he looks white. Like the antisemitic, the racist believe that African blood is a contaminant that produces an inferior person, no matter what they look like. Hence the one drop rule. This means, as always, the burden for all people of African descent is to convince the world that Africans are not an inferior people, appropriate for exclusion and abuse.
The people who promote the "one drop" myth more than anyone else (and to greatest effect) are usually black American elites and their liberal allies, not avowed racists. I also question your use of the term "of African descent." What do you think Hispanics and Arabs are? Are they included when the one drop myth is promoted as fact by liberal media sources?
Finally, if people who are of African descent, but appear white, are white; then people who are of European descent, but who appear black, are black . . . If that becomes the analysis, then the white and brown twin girls, pictured under the subject "black parents with white children," would belong to different races, even though their gene are the same . . .
I question the use of the term "appear white." Why not just say Caucasians or whites of partial African ancestry? The "appear white" term implies that you are talking about mutations that Africans produced alone, which is consistent with the premise of "contamination."
So what if full siblings are of different "races"? In Latin America, it is no big deal to say that some of your children are white, some mulatto and some black, mestizo, Indio, etc. I saw a PBS documentary, "American Girls," in which the three daughters of a Dominican couple identified with different races according to phenotype. It makes more sense than claiming that "blacks come in all colors" and other nonsense designed to promote the idea that only "black" ancestry is fit for the "tarbrushed" to claim (all other ancestries supposedly being too exalted for such contaminated creatures, a la "Imitation of Life"). Hey, if Barack Obama can say with a straight face that his "race" AND "ethnicity" are totally different from the "race" and "ethnicity" of the biological mother and grandparents who reared him...
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
I'd rather see "Birth of a Nation" on TV 24/7 than "Imitation of Life."
