Well, but by not being clear, Bliss is indirectly supporting the ODR myth (reinforcement) in her interviews. I have seen the aforementioned news segment and at least one other and the term 'secretly' Black, really Black, etc is more often used than mixed, Creole, etc.
I feel any support for the 'Black ancestry only' based ODR (whether it be Blacks, Whites, or "Others') is morally bankrupt and just plain wrong. The ODR is just not right, ever!
Clearly. But by stating such you also say quite explicitly that personal identity choices can be "just plain wrong." I don't see this point of view as superior to one that upholds personal choice. You are really just exchanging one racial classification system that denies personal choice for another - one that is perhaps more palatable to you, but not one which actually creates more personal freedom.
Quote:
Yes, I do understand the historical 'significance', the 'struggle', past genocides, current realities, and the future implications this topic has for American society, especially AAs (who are effected the most), and those interested in the politics of race and privilege ad nauseum... Yeah, I get it. However, by supporting the ODR myth, AAs perpetuate Black inferiority and the singling out of Blacks as 'different', not like all other races.
Black inferiority is perpetuated by white supremacy, or, more accurately, American society's anti-SSA orientation. Otherwise it is clear that supporting a mixed race category for children who are products of a cross-color line relationship also perpetuates "Black" inferiority. Why should someone with SSA ancestry believe they are "good enough" to be mixed but not "good enough" to be White? The thinking harkens back to where this all started, not to the ODR.
Quote:
Actually, the feudal system was similar among the stratified class hierarchies. This was more a legacy of that - i.e. knowing and staying in your place, etc. See also Indian Caste System.
Not exactly. There was no definitive place for the illegimate son or daughter of a noble or a knight outside of what the father granted through his own efforts (royal bastards, for example, were not "half royal" but they could be granted lands or titles by their fathers) . Legitimacy was bestowed on the offspring within a marriage even in feudal times. There is something inherently illegitimate to the social order created in the colonies because the path to legitimacy for slave or ancestrally inappropriate women with SSA was legally shut down. Once marriage to such women became illegal for White elites these "arrangements" took on social illegitimacy beyond attitudes about miscegenation. Sure, powerful men have always preserved their sexual access to lower-status women, but in American culture this access was de-legitimized with vehemence when it came to low status women of SSA ancestry.
Quote:
What many call Colorism has existed for eons. Few cultures have prized very dark skin color. It has nothing to do with current White Supremacy. As the World stands currently, being dark skinned is just not going to be prized. To them I say: Get over it and love oneself anyway. There is no solution for Colorism. People will always have a preference for such things in life. It is an unfortunate part of human nature.
I doubt that the current preference for lighter skin is natural or a part of human nature. I do agree that there is no solution for colorism to be found in a racial label.
Quote:
So, the ODR of the future's 'victims' might be those who posses 'African' features (dark, broad nose, kinky haired, big-lipped, etc) vs. the majority of the population. Ask yourself why other dark races (Samoans, Aborigines, etc) still do not suffer appearance based racism in America. Why Because the ODR myth supports the notion that a separate category of 'Blacks' (AAs) are 'inferior' and that all other 'Blacks' are 'okay'.
I'd have to disagree with this statement based on how shabbily many Africans and people from the Carribean are treated by racist Whites. Even Arabs and Pacific Islanders fall victim to such thinking.
Quote:
This is a main reason why many AAs hold fast to the ODR. Some have even admitted it. They do not want to lose status, power, etc to 'LSBs', Creoles, Mixed-raced peoples of partial SSA descent. In order to not be on the bottom alone, they will hold others down with them (ODR). 'Blocked access to Whiteness' or is it the more common euphamism 'trying to be White'? And why, I ask, should not someone >75% White not claim what is theirs by birthright, hmmm? What is wrong with White people?
So, while maybe some are trying like La Raza to 'improve the race', others 'aspire to Whiteness'? Whatever!
Nope. You have utterly missed my point and gone off on a tangent. Let's come back: As long as white supremacy (White is best, White is good, White is superior) is an underlying cultural principle, no one who falls short of "whiteness" has a fair shot. A person "on the bottom" as you put it has nothing to gain from "holding someone back." What the aspirational person in this example doesn't get is that they are not being held back by anything by White supremacy at the end of the day. The ODR rule essentially divorced some people with a white apperance from their "birthright" (I guess you mean their right to be treated as superior?). People with the "taint of the tarbrush" in their ancestry not their appearance. What really changed for anyone else? For the rest it seemed to be a fight to hold onto second class status, to be seen as "almost good enough" or "somewhat superior."
Quote:
But is it just a power struggle or is it deeper? I think it is deeper and that some people internally feel these LSB types are 'a superior Black'. (IMO, a so-called 'superior Black' is one who first looks Black, lol. )
IMO these people don't really believe in the "superior" type of Black. They believe that whiteness is superior - they believe the hype. Aside from the ethnocentric orientation that any in-group can develop, even the so-called "superior Blacks" in the Talented Tenth likely believed that their SSA ancestry made them inferior. They just wanted to be superior to SOMEONE because they believed they were inferior to Whites. It is all about what ideal one aspires to and what one perceives as a barrier to getting there. And all of this superiority stuff is nonsense to me. I don't buy into racial paradigms, favorable to me or not.
Back to Bliss: She doesn't owe anyone an explanation for her actions. She may truly be exploring an aspect of her identity that she believes was lost her. She may be profiteering from the racialist angst this country has about SSA ancestry. She may be taking out a private rage in a public forum. If she decides to say "screw this, I'm a White chick" tomorrow, good for her. If she says "yup, I'm a Black chick," good for her. If she decides to embrace another label or none at all, good for her. If you support personal identity choice, you support personal identity choice. Maybe Gates and other have a preference for Bliss, but it sounds like every advocate of a racial order has a preference for Bliss as well. The only difference I see in any of them is what they want her to call herself. Each believes that she SHOULD call herself whatever they believe is "right." That to me is more dangerous than anything else....the presumption that anyone has the right to label another person when they should label themselves as they please, gain acceptance in the communities that accept them and live their lives in peace. I do not see any advantage to overthrowing the ODR and implementing whatever "racially appropriate" system is being advocated because I believe only personal choice in the matter is appropriate.
As you can see, Bliss is the first photo , on the top left.
Gates must be really satisfied with his efforts to ensconce Anatole and Bliss in his pantheon of notable African Americans
She is American and she does have African ancestry. LOL. They didn't call her Black. According to Frank anyone can change their ethnicity. So I guess she is Afro-American now. LOL
Well, but by not being clear, Bliss is indirectly supporting the ODR myth (reinforcement) in her interviews. I have seen the aforementioned news segment and at least one other and the term 'secretly' Black, really Black, etc is more often used than mixed, Creole, etc.
I feel any support for the 'Black ancestry only' based ODR (whether it be Blacks, Whites, or "Others') is morally bankrupt and just plain wrong. The ODR is just not right, ever!
Clearly. But by stating such you also say quite explicitly that personal identity choices can be "just plain wrong." I don't see this point of view as superior to one that upholds personal choice. You are really just exchanging one racial classification system that denies personal choice for another - one that is perhaps more palatable to you, but not one which actually creates more personal freedom.
I believe in DNA. I believe in ethnic heritage. I believe that a person's ethnicity is immutable. Saying White is Black and/or Black is White is absurd. You are what you are, and a lot of that is how you look. For Americans to conjure race in a vacuum, well....
Black inferiority is perpetuated by white supremacy, or, more accurately, American society's anti-SSA orientation. Otherwise it is clear that supporting a mixed race category for children who are products of a cross-color line relationship also perpetuates "Black" inferiority.
No it does not. If Mestizos (White/Indian) are Mestizo, not Indian, then on the same token, mulattos (Black/White) are mulattos. By making an exception for everybody EXCEPT SSA's is racist. No matter who does it.
Quote:
What many call Colorism has existed for eons. Few cultures have prized very dark skin color. It has nothing to do with current White Supremacy. As the World stands currently, being dark skinned is just not going to be prized. To them I say: Get over it and love oneself anyway. There is no solution for Colorism. People will always have a preference for such things in life. It is an unfortunate part of human nature.
I doubt that the current preference for lighter skin is natural or a part of human nature. I do agree that there is no solution for colorism to be found in a racial label.
Current preference? This preference has lasted milennia APART from White Supremacy/Euro contact. It is also the very long term preference for females, like youth. So, I do not see it going away anytime soon. Some say it is related to laboring in the sun vs. a presumed indoor life of leisure....whateva.
Quote:
So, the ODR of the future's 'victims' might be those who posses 'African' features (dark, broad nose, kinky haired, big-lipped, etc) vs. the majority of the population. Ask yourself why other dark races (Samoans, Aborigines, etc) still do not suffer appearance based racism in America. Why Because the ODR myth supports the notion that a separate category of 'Blacks' (AAs) are 'inferior' and that all other 'Blacks' are 'okay'.
I'd have to disagree with this statement based on how shabbily many Africans and people from the Carribean are treated by racist Whites. Even Arabs and Pacific Islanders fall victim to such thinking.
Again, these groups are included in what I was saying as they are recent Afro-descended/slave groups. Other-raced people far darker than me have greater 'acceptance' levels....
I see you agree with the common mistake of the Black Liberal Intellegia. That other races are helpless pawns against 'Blacks', just fellow victims of White Supremacy, lol.You may not believe it, but some 'other' races (i.e Asians) may have their own legitamate 'beef' with Blacks apart from solidarity with Whites (so called Black vs. Non-Black divide).
Quote:
This is a main reason why many AAs hold fast to the ODR. Some have even admitted it. They do not want to lose status, power, etc to 'LSBs', Creoles, Mixed-raced peoples of partial SSA descent. In order to not be on the bottom alone, they will hold others down with them (ODR). 'Blocked access to Whiteness' or is it the more common euphamism 'trying to be White'? And why, I ask, should not someone >75% White not claim what is theirs by birthright, hmmm? What is wrong with White people?
So, while maybe some are trying like La Raza to 'improve the race', others 'aspire to Whiteness'? Whatever!
Nope. You have utterly missed my point and gone off on a tangent. No, my claim is valid. There are many who would hold SSA/mixies due to their own inferiority/self-hatred complexes. I do not find this in AFRICANS, only some AAs.
Let's come back: As long as white supremacy (White is best, White is good, White is superior) is an underlying cultural principle, no one who falls short of "whiteness" has a fair shot. That is their goal, but Asians do have a fair shot.
A person "on the bottom" as you put it has nothing to gain from "holding someone back." This is a myth. See: CRABS in a BARREL. Or ask any NFL/NBA player from the Hood. They would probably tell you how they are not 'safe' among former neighboors due to this mentality.
What the aspirational person in this example doesn't get is that they are not being held back by anything by White supremacy at the end of the day. The ODR rule essentially divorced some people with a white apperance from their "birthright" (I guess you mean their right to be treated as superior?). No, I do not consider it as such. They are what they are. However, using these people in one's quest to rid the world of White Supremacy is unfair.
Quote:
But is it just a power struggle or is it deeper? I think it is deeper and that some people internally feel these LSB types are 'a superior Black'. (IMO, a so-called 'superior Black' is one who first looks Black, lol. )
Back to Bliss: She doesn't owe anyone an explanation for her actions. She may truly be exploring an aspect of her identity that she believes was lost her.
Yes, it is her heritage, but not her identity. (It is too late - daddy issues obviously. ) She has the luxury of picking this heritage up, its new, but also of putting it down anytime. Life will go on, none the worse for wear. She'll still get a cab in NY.
I do not see any advantage to overthrowing the ODR and implementing whatever "racially appropriate" system is being advocated because I believe only personal choice in the matter is appropriate.
You do not see any advanatage to overthrowing ODR? Yeah, many AAs do not, since its most advantagious to them. A back-handed compliment from Whites, is still a compliment, eh?
I believe in DNA. I believe in ethnic heritage. I believe that a person's ethnicity is immutable. Saying White is Black and/or Black is White is absurd. You are what you are, and a lot of that is how you look. For Americans to conjure race in a vacuum, well....
Your essentialist way of thinking is exactly why you cannot accept the principle of personal choice in identity, and it is what my point of view on Bliss is based on. I appreciate your statements because they cut through all of the typical BS that people get hung up on in these types of discussions. They outline very precisely why a person who thinks like you can't really accept a human organizing principle that is not based on the Blumbachian/Linnaen concepts of race that eventually spawned the ODR and all similar racialist systems. You have accepted the premise that there is an essential and accurate racial nature that divides populations in our species. I do not. The only legitimate part of these divisions are the ethnic communities that both sustain themselves as well as change over time with the movement of people, integroup conflicts and evolution. These divisions are temporal, unreliable and impermanent, they are NOT essential.
To you, current racial (not ethnic, as White and Black are far from univeral concepts nor are they anything but racial concepts that vary from nation to nation, era to era and even person to person). What is essential or "immutable" for you really is no such thing. Look at the whole back and forth about Native American autosomal DNA results. What is "immutable" about that? The science is still evolving. Do you realize that these groups used for autosomal DNA testing are in no way discrete and are in no way indicative of some sort of "rightness" of the racial categories US Americans have been socialized to accept (Black, White, Asian, Native American)? They overlap all over the place!
I go back to the point I keep making on all of these topics or people that are held up as scapegoats for upholding whatever wrongheaded classification system is being criticized: If a person identifies with ANY aspect of their ancestry more than others or in spite of others, it is his/her choice. If a person wants to integrate their ancestral lines into one "mixed" or multidimensional identity framework, it is his/her choice. If they reject their homegrown ethnic groups and choose to participate in another, it is his/her choice. Only the latter would require acceptance by the receiving ethnic group.
sagascend wrote:
Black inferiority is perpetuated by white supremacy, or, more accurately, American society's anti-SSA orientation. Otherwise it is clear that supporting a mixed race category for children who are products of a cross-color line relationship also perpetuates "Black" inferiority.
Melani23 wrote:
No it does not. If Mestizos (White/Indian) are Mestizo, not Indian, then on the same token, mulattos (Black/White) are mulattos. By making an exception for everybody EXCEPT SSA's is racist. No matter who does it.
Yes it is all neat and nice when two "races" make a "mix" the first time. But what about generations later when things are more complicated? You can't undo mixture once it is there genealogically speaking. But what you are describing is really a cultural orientation - there are mestizos who see themselves as Whites or Spanish (see many Hispanics living in Northern New Mexico) and mestizos who see themselves as Indian (see the Aztec-oriented Mexican Mafia). Culturally, mestizos from countries like Mexico acknowledge the blending that occurred (but as we have seen, the African contribution is often ignored or denied in the case of Mexico). That doesn't mean they are one thing and not another. It means they have chosen to identify/orient themselves in a certain direction.
Many mulattos in the US see themselves as Blacks and surely many see themselves as Whites. So what? As long as no one is forced to choose an identity they don't want (the only problem I have with the ODR) I personally welcome the free for all that would ensue. So to me someone like Bliss is as unproblematic as a "Black" person with 12% European ancestry exploring their "whiteness" and identifying with their European gg-grand or whoever. The more such contrarians the better in my view. I have stopped believing that racial categories can make sense when used to defined personal identity.
sagascend wrote:
I doubt that the current preference for lighter skin is natural or a part of human nature. I do agree that there is no solution for colorism to be found in a racial label.
Melani23 wrote:
Current preference? This preference has lasted milennia APART from White Supremacy/Euro contact. It is also the very long term preference for females, like youth. So, I do not see it going away anytime soon. Some say it is related to laboring in the sun vs. a presumed indoor life of leisure....whateva.
You've got a rebuttal prepared for a statement I did not make. Females within populations are in fact lighter than males and have "babylike" features that attract men. This has absolutely nothing to do with the preference for light skin (which is actually in both men and women but often people forget about half the population in their eagerness to confirm the "natural" preference for light skin). If darkskinned people dominated the world you'd likely see the preference shift. Neither one is "natural" in the sense that you imply.
Melani23 wrote:
Again, these groups are included in what I was saying as they are recent Afro-descended/slave groups. Other-raced people far darker than me have greater 'acceptance' levels....
Pacific Islanders (i.e., Samoans; New Guineans) and Arabs are recently descended from SSA slaves? I don't know about that. The fact is that anti SSA sentiments are shared in many regions of the world but not for the same reasons. Looking like you have SSA ancestry is often all that's needed. Pacific Islanders are Asians in the current racial scheme afterall.
Melani23 wrote:
I see you agree with the common mistake of the Black Liberal Intellegia. That other races are helpless pawns against 'Blacks', just fellow victims of White Supremacy, lol.You may not believe it, but some 'other' races (i.e Asians) may have their own legitamate 'beef' with Blacks apart from solidarity with Whites (so called Black vs. Non-Black divide).
LOL I sincerely doubt it. I'm not a racialist. There is and probably always will be interethnic strife. Most of it has nothing to do with whites. But I do acknowledge the hegemony of white supremacy in the United States and, to a large degree, the world. I'm not sure how one could deny its influence given our history. The "Black/non-Black" divide is an outgrowth of immigration of "non-White" people who do not have to or do not want to be absorbed into American conceptions of whiteness. As long as "Blacks" are excluded the paradigm will still hold. You will still likely see people with sizable SSA ancestry and clearly SSA appearance on the non-Black side. "Black" and "of SSA" are not the same thing.
Quote:
You do not see any advanatage to overthrowing ODR? Yeah, many AAs do not, since its most advantagious to them. A back-handed compliment from Whites, is still a compliment, eh?
You are going to give yourself a seizure with all of that eye rolling. No, I don't because I want personal freedom for all people. I believe that the ethnic group formed under the ODR is a valid CHOICE for people. There is no advantage or disadvantage to me either way. That is what people on both sides might want to consider. How much does a person's identity choice really impact you personally? Why the need to be so critical about what doesn't really concern you at the end of the day?
Your essentialist way of thinking is exactly why you cannot accept the principle of personal choice in identity, and it is what my point of view on Bliss is based on.....
Quote:
They outline very precisely why a person who thinks like you can't really accept a human organizing principle that is not based on the Blumbachian/Linnaen concepts of race that eventually spawned the ODR and all similar racialist systems.
I disagree. Bliss was raised/is White. For her to try to change things now - its too late. Her new 'family' knowledge did not shape her persona, it can only 'influence' after the fact. IMO, she misses her father and is trying to connect with him the only way she can- by learning more about his early life. Futhermore, I dispise race hustlers like Henry Gates using a pinning daughter's love as a pretext for continuing ODR pathology aka AA Solidarity.
Also, my so-called 'racialist' views are not based in 18th Century toxonomy. While peronal identity chioces are all fine and dandy on the internet, the reality is that calling oneself a Martian does not make one so. Phenotype, not genotype, will forever be the deciding factor in human 'racial' classfifcation schemes. It is human nature to separate kind vs. non-kind. Heck, even our blood cells do that. And none of us feeling 'just human' and/or honoring all ethnicites in our DNA profile won't make 'us' all 'mixed' either.
Quote:
You have accepted the premise that there is an essential and accurate racial nature that divides populations in our species. I do not.
This is not accurate. It is my belief that all people descend from two humans - Adam amd Eve. Any phenotypic variation was caused by climate variation affter the continents divided and human groups spread out, becoming separate populations/breeding groups. However, I do accept the reality of physical differences and the concept of ethnicity. Again, I used ethnicity, not race, in my orginal arguement, please follow closer.
Quote:
The only legitimate part of these divisions are the ethnic communities that both sustain themselves as well as change over time with the movement of people, integroup conflicts and evolution. These divisions are temporal, unreliable and impermanent, they are NOT essential.
Agreed.
Quote:
To you, current racial (not ethnic, as White and Black are far from univeral concepts nor are they anything but racial concepts that vary from nation to nation, era to era and even person to person).
Not accurate. See above.
Quote:
What is essential or "immutable" for you really is no such thing. Look at the whole back and forth about Native American autosomal DNA results. What is "immutable" about that? The science is still evolving. Do you realize that these groups used for autosomal DNA testing are in no way discrete and are in no way indicative of some sort of "rightness" of the racial categories US Americans have been socialized to accept (Black, White, Asian, Native American)? They overlap all over the place!
Yes, but there are isolated halotypes connected with continental populations nevertheless. See http://www.hapmap.org/
Quote:
If a person identifies with ANY aspect of their ancestry more than others or in spite of others, it is his/her choice.
Agreed, but my only caveat is that it reflects a majority ancestry.
Quote:
If a person wants to integrate their ancestral lines into one "mixed" or multidimensional identity framework, it is his/her choice.
Agreed.
Quote:
If they reject their homegrown ethnic groups and choose to participate in another, it is his/her choice. Only the latter would require acceptance by the receiving ethnic group.
It is my view that one cannot change ethnicity like one changes ones socks. You are born with it - whiether you adhere or reject it - your choice, agreed, but 'it' isn't something you can change. IT is YOU.
Quote:
Yes it is all neat and nice when two "races" make a "mix" the first time. But what about generations later when things are more complicated? You can't undo mixture once it is there genealogically speaking.
True, but we have DNA testing now and with a true mixture of ethnicity, culture, and phenotypes, a RELEVANT choice, should be made.
Quote:
But what you are describing is really a cultural orientation - there are mestizos who see themselves as Whites or Spanish (see many Hispanics living in Northern New Mexico) and mestizos who see themselves as Indian (see the Aztec-oriented Mexican Mafia). Culturally, mestizos from countries like Mexico acknowledge the blending that occurred (but as we have seen, the African contribution is often ignored or denied in the case of Mexico). That doesn't mean they are one thing and not another. It means they have chosen to identify/orient themselves in a certain direction.
Good example - they are wrong too. LOL!
Quote:
Many mulattos in the US see themselves as Blacks and surely many see themselves as Whites. So what?
They should be what they are - mulatto.
Quote:
You've got a rebuttal prepared for a statement I did not make. Females within populations are in fact lighter than males and have "babylike" features that attract men. This has absolutely nothing to do with the preference for light skin (which is actually in both men and women but often people forget about half the population in their eagerness to confirm the "natural" preference for light skin). If darkskinned people dominated the world you'd likely see the preference shift. Neither one is "natural" in the sense that you imply.
Yes, I aware of all this, this was not my point. What is natural is, having a preference. And darksinned people have previosuly dominated the world. Do we know what the preferences were then?
Quote:
Pacific Islanders (i.e., Samoans; New Guineans) and Arabs are recently descended from SSA slaves? I don't know about that.
I didn't state this. My point was that other non-recent and/or SSA desceneded races don't have the same issues/problems as West African descended individuals in America.
Quote:
You are going to give yourself a seizure with all of that eye rolling.
LOL!
Quote:
No, I don't because I want personal freedom for all people. I believe that the ethnic group formed under the ODR is a valid CHOICE for people.
These two statements are not correlated. How can people 'forced to be AA' have freedom of choice due to the ODR? And how is this choice valid?
Quote:
There is no advantage or disadvantage to me either way. That is what people on both sides might want to consider. How much does a person's identity choice really impact you personally? Why the need to be so critical about what doesn't really concern you at the end of the day?
Because it does not affect you/your children. It only affects those on the color line.
I disagree. Bliss was raised/is White. For her to try to change things now - its too late. Her new 'family' knowledge did not shape her persona, it can only 'influence' after the fact.
Spoken like a person who probably doesn't know what it is like to find out information that changes the way you think about your ancestry and subsequently perhaps how you identify. The very existence of the ODR makes her shift understandable. I ask, again, by what right or intimate knowledge can you or anyone else determine what is too late for her to change or consider in her personal journey through life?
In addition, your "persona" doesn't stop changing and evolving until you die, and what you call influences are often the deciding factors in the evolution of one's identity. The whole idea of salience in personal identity (see the work of Michael Hecht and Mary Jane Collier in cultural identity studies for more on this concept) speaks to the emergent nature of various aspects of ourselves depending on context. In other words, identity is multifaceted, dynamic and complex, not singular, static and simplistic.
It is entirely appropriate, given the stigma associated with SSA ancestry, the ODR and the way in which white identity develops in this country that a White person like Bliss might be knocked off balance psychologically speaking. And this reaction is not limited in anyway to a certain phenotype.
Melani23 wrote:
IMO, she misses her father and is trying to connect with him the only way she can- by learning more about his early life. Futhermore, I dispise race hustlers like Henry Gates using a pinning daughter's love as a pretext for continuing ODR pathology aka AA Solidarity.
LOL Bliss is a grown woman not a teenager or little girl. If Bliss is onboard with Gates then that is on her. She might be using him to sell books, does that make it better or worse?
Melani23 wrote:
Also, my so-called 'racialist' views are not based in 18th Century toxonomy. While peronal identity chioces are all fine and dandy on the internet, the reality is that calling oneself a Martian does not make one so. Phenotype, not genotype, will forever be the deciding factor in human 'racial' classfifcation schemes.
Certainly, but 18th century taxonomy and racial classification do not have to be accepted by 21st century people. And none of the complaints in cyberspace are going to change the fact that Bliss Broyard is exploring what it means TO HER to discover previously unknown SSA ancestry and Creole heritage, a real aspect of her genealogy (I'm not aware of any Martian ancestry in her family).
Melani23 wrote:
It is human nature to separate kind vs. non-kind. Heck, even our blood cells do that. And none of us feeling 'just human' and/or honoring all ethnicites in our DNA profile won't make 'us' all 'mixed' either.
If my blood cells recognize "my kind" in others, interestingly enough the phenotype you rely on so heavily to classify folks plays no part in that recognition (blood groups don't fall along racial lines). And if am surrounded from birth by various phenotypes how exactly would I learn which one isn't "my kind?"
Melani23 wrote:
It is my belief that all people descend from two humans - Adam amd Eve. Any phenotypic variation was caused by climate variation affter the continents divided and human groups spread out, becoming separate populations/breeding groups. However, I do accept the reality of physical differences and the concept of ethnicity. Again, I used ethnicity, not race, in my orginal arguement, please follow closer.
Looking closely (again), it seems to me that conceptions of race and ethnicity are conflated in your argument. African American are an ethnic group yet you have said repeatedly on this site that some are "not really" African Americans even though they grew up in the culture. Which one is it? Either phenotype = ethnicity (code word for RACE if I ever heard one) or phenotype = ancestry and does not determine which ethnicity or culture one "should" belong to.
Quote:
What is essential or "immutable" for you really is no such thing. Look at the whole back and forth about Native American autosomal DNA results. What is "immutable" about that? The science is still evolving. Do you realize that these groups used for autosomal DNA testing are in no way discrete and are in no way indicative of some sort of "rightness" of the racial categories US Americans have been socialized to accept (Black, White, Asian, Native American)? They overlap all over the place!
Melani23 wrote:
Yes, but there are isolated halotypes connected with continental populations nevertheless. See http://www.hapmap.org/
These continental populations have moved around and interbreed for centuries and centuries. Are they isolated enough so as not to be found across the globe in our current human population? Besides wasn't your argument positioning phenotype as the determining factor in human organization?
Quote:
If they reject their homegrown ethnic groups and choose to participate in another, it is his/her choice. Only the latter would require acceptance by the receiving ethnic group.
Melani23 wrote:
It is my view that one cannot change ethnicity like one changes ones socks. You are born with it - whiether you adhere or reject it - your choice, agreed, but 'it' isn't something you can change. IT is YOU.
How are you born with ethnicity that doesn't change? This is starting to sound like race to me. If a Nigerian Jewess becomes Muslim tomorrow is she still "ethnically Jewish?" If she marries a Serbian Muslim are their children "ethnically Jewish" Muslim or neither? There are varying rules within cultures that determine belonging. Even Hitler was inconsistent and "de-Jewed" Jewish people and "re-Jewed" non-Jewish people.
The Jewish example is a good one because it is the most akin to the phenotypic determination that many also impose on SSA ancestry. There is not one standard that is accepted in determining who is Jewish. The closest is the matrilineal rule whereby Jewishness is passed through the mother. But converts, recent and ancient, make that rule as porous as a sieve in reality.
As I keep saying, this is all well and good when you are pointing at individuals but what happens when their descendants do not follow the ethnic/racial/cultural rules? What happens if some of their descendants come back into the fold but others never do? At some point in time all of this certainty around "who is really what" becomes utter nonsense.
Melani23 wrote:
True, but we have DNA testing now and with a true mixture of ethnicity, culture, and phenotypes, a RELEVANT choice, should be made.
And if I asked you what a "true" mixture is I'd bet that what you'd come up with resembles the "racial" blend of a taxonomy that was established in the 1800s. Your logic is undeniably tied to racialism. "True mixture" of ethnicity culture and phenotype has been widespread and enduring for eons. You have are just accustomed to "lumping" diverse phenotypes into larger groups (called races...oh I mean ETHNICITIES ). I don't mean to pick on you but come on Melani.
Quote:
Good example - they are wrong too. LOL!
Quote:
They should be what they are - mulatto.
That says it all for me. You believe in validity of ethnic communities and personal choice but only if they are formed according to or in observance of your racial categories. And you're pointing the finger at Gates?
Melani23 wrote:
Yes, I aware of all this, this was not my point. What is natural is, having a preference. And darksinned people have previosuly dominated the world. Do we know what the preferences were then?
I agree. Look at all of the lightskinned people with darkskinned spouses.
Melani23 wrote:
I didn't state this. My point was that other non-recent and/or SSA desceneded races don't have the same issues/problems as West African descended individuals in America.
Like who? Besides the phenotype spectrum for the USAmerican races (including the blends) are pretty large. Our culture lumps it doesn't split.
Quote:
No, I don't because I want personal freedom for all people. I believe that the ethnic group formed under the ODR is a valid CHOICE for people.
Melani23 wrote:
These two statements are not correlated. How can people 'forced to be AA' have freedom of choice due to the ODR? And how is this choice valid?
If group membership is voluntary and personal choice in identity is the rule that sounds like a perfect fit to me. It might be inconceivable to someone who sees being a part of African American culture as a burden, but many people would and do choose to belong to it freely. The problem is forced participation.
An analogy: If our society forced children good at math in science to become engineers does that mean that the engineering profession itself is morally wrong, repulsive and oppressive? No, but the actions taken to remove personal choice in deciding on a profession certainly are.
Quote:
There is no advantage or disadvantage to me either way. That is what people on both sides might want to consider. How much does a person's identity choice really impact you personally? Why the need to be so critical about what doesn't really concern you at the end of the day?
Melani23 wrote:
Because it does not affect you/your children. It only affects those on the color line.
And you'd know this how? It has already affected me and has affected generations of my family. It impacts the child I have and the children I will have in the future.
And how does the personal choice of a virtual stranger impact you?
Suffice it to say, we disagree, but I will respond to your more valid points:
Quote:
I ask, again, by what right or intimate knowledge can you or anyone else determine what is too late for her to change or consider in her personal journey through life?
A personal journey is one thing - totally changing 'ethnicity/race' (feel better?) another. My problem with scenarios like Bliss is that it rarely goes the other way. Why? Because other ethnicties or 'races' of people wouldn't 'tolerate' it. They have racial standards...which again brings us back to the AA 'need' for the ODR, but let's not go there (again)...
Quote:
In addition, your "persona" doesn't stop changing and evolving until you die, and what you call influences are often the deciding factors in the evolution of one's identity.
I disagree. We learn or 'evolve' but who we are - dimentions of our personality is more or less fixed in adulthood (Soldz & Vaillant, 1999). Again, it appears she (Bliss) is seeking family, has found it, but more importantly has made her own (Jewish spouse/child). I would not put her in the 'AA Camp' yet (despite the fact that she is quoted as saying she checks (Census) White, Native, and AA). Yes, I'm stereotyping but it would apear that those White people of SSA descent who truly embrace their 'blackness' marry back into the AA community.
Quote:
It is entirely appropriate, given the stigma associated with SSA ancestry, the ODR and the way in which white identity develops in this country that a White person like Bliss might be knocked off balance psychologically speaking
Quote:
LOL Bliss is a grown woman not a teenager or little girl. If Bliss is onboard with Gates then that is on her. She might be using him to sell books, does that make it better or worse?
Hmm, many are not when finding out the same info. They take is as a matter of course. But oh yeah, they are not trying to sell books, either....
Quote:
Certainly, but 18th century taxonomy and racial classification do not have to be accepted by 21st century people. And none of the complaints in cyberspace are going to change the fact that Bliss Broyard is exploring what it means TO HER to discover previously unknown SSA ancestry and Creole heritage, a real aspect of her genealogy (I'm not aware of any Martian ancestry in her family).
Yes, I have no problem with that, however I do have a problem with newly accepting a ethnicity/race you do not resemble.
Quote:
If my blood cells recognize "my kind" in others, interestingly enough the phenotype you rely on so heavily to classify folks plays no part in that recognition (blood groups don't fall along racial lines). And if am surrounded from birth by various phenotypes how exactly would I learn which one isn't "my kind?"
You mistake my meaning here. I am talking about the immune response.
Furthermore, being surrounded by various phenotypes doesn't matter as one is taught who is 'family' and who isn't.
Quote:
Looking closely (again), it seems to me that conceptions of race and ethnicity are conflated in your argument. African American are an ethnic group yet you have said repeatedly on this site that some are "not really" African Americans even though they grew up in the culture. Which one is it? Either phenotype = ethnicity (code word for RACE if I ever heard one) or phenotype = ancestry and does not determine which ethnicity or culture one "should" belong to.
No, you are lumping me in with other posters. Please show where I have stated this. I consider LSB, high yellows, and MGM to be AA/Black as that is the sole CULTURE they are raised in. It is different for Creoles and F1, F2 mixtures. My arguement is for people are directly multi-racial in THIS CENTURY, 1 or 2 generations removed from admixture, not hundreds of years. People who are multi-racial, and are from diverse cultural backgrounds as well and know exactly who they are descended from.
Quote:
Are they isolated enough so as not to be found across the globe in our current human population?
I'm not a DNA expert (anyone, anyone?) but the point is not where they are found now, but where they orginated from. It is my understanding that these discrete groups exist and can be traced via geography.
Quote:
Besides wasn't your argument positioning phenotype as the determining factor in human organization?
Yes, for example, it is highly unlikely that a Euro-phenotye would have less than 50%, let along zero, Euro admixture. There is so overlap yes, but not that much.
Quote:
How are you born with ethnicity that doesn't change? This is starting to sound like race to me. If a Nigerian Jewess becomes Muslim tomorrow is she still "ethnically Jewish?" If she marries a Serbian Muslim are their children "ethnically Jewish" Muslim or neither? There are varying rules within cultures that determine belonging. Even Hitler was inconsistent and "de-Jewed" Jewish people and "re-Jewed" non-Jewish people.
For example, a person born in Russia will probably be Russian by nationality, ancestry, ethnicity, and maybe 'race'. Ruissians can have a varierty of phenotypes, but each phenotype will adhere to a known 'Russian' standard. Adding RELIGION conflagates the issue and is a strawman.
Quote:
As I keep saying, this is all well and good when you are pointing at individuals but what happens when their descendants do not follow the ethnic/racial/cultural rules? What happens if some of their descendants come back into the fold but others never do? At some point in time all of this certainty around "who is really what" becomes utter nonsense.
Every 'raced' people has 'racialized' standards, with few exceptions.
I question the validity of those groups who do not...
Descendants coming back, moving etc does not change the reality of using the dominant appearance aka phentoypic result...
Quote:
And if I asked you what a "true" mixture is I'd bet that what you'd come up with resembles the "racial" blend of a taxonomy that was established in the 1800s
Not quite. We know have DNA testing that can be used to establish halotypes that overlapp past racial classifications. They are not one and the same.
That says it all for me. You believe in validity of ethnic communities and personal choice but only if they are formed according to or in observance of your racial categories. And you're pointing the finger at Gates
I'm for truth and for realistic choices. Claiming a 'non-Negroid' person to the Negroid 'race' is not one of them. No matter how 'proud' it makes anyone feel....
Quote:
Like who? Besides the phenotype spectrum for the USAmerican races (including the blends) are pretty large. Our culture lumps it doesn't split
Personally, 'American' should be its own race anyway, lol.
Quote:
And you'd know this how?
Photos.
Quote:
It has already affected me and has affected generations of my family
I would bet not to the degree of those 'mistaken' for other 'races' (have you been?) and/or those denied half or more of their heritage due to the ODR. Has anyone denied you 50% or more of your ethnic/racial heritage? Everytime I am called 'just Black' I am.
Quote:
And how does the personal choice of a virtual stranger impact you?
It does not directly affect me as I am not Creole, nor do I have a White appearance. But I understand and have suffered from ODResque descrimination from White Americans and Black Americans - 'my people', lol...
Melani wrote: No, you are lumping me in with other posters. Please show where I have stated this. I consider LSB, high yellows, and MGM to be AA/Black as that is the sole CULTURE they are raised in. It is different for Creoles and F1, F2 mixtures. My arguement is for people are directly multi-racial in THIS CENTURY, 1 or 2 generations removed from admixture, not hundreds of years. People who are multi-racial, and are from diverse cultural backgrounds as well and know exactly who they are descended from.
MP: I agree that the culture you identify with counts at the same time there many light skin blacks, caramel brown blacks, and dark skin blacks who grow up in what would be called white culture. They grow up among predominantly white communities, towns, and cities and assimilate into white society. So what is the determining factor of knowing which culture they grew up in. They habits, behaviors, tone of voice, etc these things are not totally accurate because from what I have seen there are some blacks who grow up in white society (communities) and display some of the same characteristics that African Americans in the ghettos display. Heck even some whites kids and young white adults display these characteristics of black American culture so are they now African Americans?
I have seen many biracial who look like light skin blacks and they grow up in white society (communities) are are seen as African American by many whites, African Americans, and other ethnic groups simply because they show visible black ancestry. So growing up in white culture does not protect them from the ODR. This proves that culture is not a determining factor by itself.
On top of that there are some light skin blacks who have white phenotypes and show no visible signs of black ancestry, and they grew up in a African American culture and identify themselves as African American. When they go out in public no one sees them as African American they are seen as white. So what about these type of light skin black Americans with white phenotypes?
Frank Sweet has also, posted here many times that many African Americans white phenotypes who are born to two black identified parents but after high school and college they change their racial classification to white. The government of America is aware of these people also.
How come no one stops them?
Speaking of Creole well the creoles are under the ODR, the ODR is what helped turn and make them into African Americans. Many white creoles simply call themselves white now. On top of that many creoles who have visible black ancestry just simply call themselves African Americans. Beyonce the singer is a creole.
So you Melani saying that creole is separate from the ODR is silly. Many African Americans claim creole ancestry and culture. Anatole Broyard was a creole, and if creole was so separate from the ODR and afforded protection from the ODR Anatole surly did not see it that why. Creole has to a major degree become a type of sub sect of African American culture and a part of African America. Creole does not protect you from the ODR. Just go asks them.
Melani wrote: My argument is for people are directly multi-racial in THIS CENTURY, 1 or 2 generations removed from admixture, not hundreds of years. People who are multi-racial, and are from diverse cultural backgrounds as well and know exactly who they are descended from.
MP: Sagasend presented some good arguments and basically.
There are many light skin blacks who have recent white, latino, asian, etc admixture that is the result of interracial marriages that took place in two generations. And guest what these people identify as African American. Even if you look in many African American neighborhoods today you will see some bi racials running around and they identify as African American.
Melani wrote: Yes, I have no problem with that, however I do have a problem with newly accepting a ethnicity/race you do not resemble.
MP: Under the ODR an African American Phenotype can look like any racial group or ethnic group on the planet. You are talking about European phenotypes I assume being labeled African American. Well there African Americans who have asian phenotypes, mestizo Latino phenotypes, and mixed race phenotypes, and Arab looking phenotypes, etc who are claimed by the African American community. Under the ODR an African American can look like Wentworth Miller, Vin Diesel, Singer Prince, El Debarge, Vanessa Williams, Kimori Lee Simmons, Wayne Joseph (the school teach who found out he he had not black ancestry), and any other racial group.
African Americans may see it like this why should we exclude a European phenotype from the ODR and not all of the other phenotypes. The ODR was created for the European phenotype specifically. Not for the Vanessa Williams, Alicia Keys, Terrence Howard, Arab, Asian phenotypes, etc
I look at it like this I try to help inform all people about the history of the ODR regardless of their phenotypes or racial group.
If you can't they maybe you should try to do something to help end what torments you (ODR).
It’s an irrefutable fact that Anatole Broyard, who for over a decade had served as a daily book critic for the New York Times and as a columnist and editor at the New York Times Book Review after that, is black.
This guy obviously believes that Broyard was "black" in an objective, biological sense. This is what liberal and black endorsement of the ODR accomplishes.
It’s an irrefutable fact that Anatole Broyard, who for over a decade had served as a daily book critic for the New York Times and as a columnist and editor at the New York Times Book Review after that, is black.
This guy obviously believes that Broyard was "black" in an objective, biological sense. This is what liberal and black endorsement of the ODR accomplishes.
I see he's eating his words and taking the "black" back.
Posted: Wed 30 Jan 2008 23:17 Post subject: More propaganda from Henry Louis Gates, Jr.
Anatole Broyard's old enemy Henry Louis Gates, Jr. is promoting a new "black" online magazine (financed by rich whites, of course).
Quote:
January 28, 2008
NY Times
Washington Post Starts an Online Magazine for Blacks
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
In attempt to broaden its online audience, The Washington Post Company on Monday is to introduce an online magazine primarily for a black audience, with news and commentary on politics and culture, and tools for readers to research their family histories.
Henry Louis Gates Jr., a writer and a professor of African and African-American studies at Harvard, is the editor in chief of the magazine, called The Root, which he conceived with Donald E. Graham, chief executive of the company. The magazine is based in Washington, free to readers and will be found at www.theroot.com.
Several well-known authors and scholars have agreed to contribute to The Root, including Malcolm Gladwell and William Julius Wilson. The managing editor is Lynette Clemetson, who was until recently a reporter in Washington for the The New York Times and previously was a national and foreign correspondent for Newsweek.
The magazine they describe could be seen as a more highbrow, political alternative to established magazines like Ebony and sites like BlackAmericaWeb.com and BlackVoices.com. The Root’s emphasis on genealogy will set it apart from those competitors, which pay more attention to entertainment, lifestyle and consumption.
Much of the news and commentary, Ms. Clemetson said, “will not have an explicitly black angle” but will address issues like health care and housing.
The news segment of the site will collect reporting from other sources, sometimes picking up on stories that are not heavily covered by the mainstream media. In the section titled “Views,” Mr. Gates and Ms. Clemetson said, they want to present conflicting outlooks, countering the notion that there is a monolithic black point of view.
“We didn’t feel there is a place right now where right-wing and left-wing and centrist black commentators can get together in one space,” Mr. Gates said.
The third major part of the new site, titled “Roots,” will have online tools for people to build their family trees, link to or add information to other people’s trees and construct maps showing their ancestral trails. It will also urge people to have DNA testing, which can help them trace their backgrounds to specific ethnic groups and parts of the world. It will offer links to companies that do the testing.
One such company the site will direct people to, www.AfricanDNA.com, is co-owned by Mr. Gates, a relationship that would be prohibited at some publications.
“I don’t see a conflict of interest,” he said, because The Root will fully disclose his roles and will link to every company that does the DNA testing.
Mr. Gates has developed a preoccupation with genealogy and helping black people reconstruct histories that were buried by the enslavement of people from Africa and by generations of illiteracy, families torn apart and exclusion from official records.
He heads a project that collects and preserves black publications, some dating to the early 19th century, which he says are an invaluable source of information. “One of the things I want to create is a huge database of all the obituaries in all of these newspapers,” he said.
Mr. Gates also sees The Root as a way of recreating the role of the black newspapers that once thrived in many major cities but have largely disappeared.
In the small town in western Maryland where he grew up, “We would get in the black barbershops both The Pittsburgh Courier and The Baltimore Afro-American,” he said, and people would read the papers and argue about the news.
Mr. Graham and Mr. Gates have known each other for years from serving together on the board of the Pulitzer Prizes at Columbia University. They said The Root grew out of a series of casual conversations between them. Each man credited the other with the original idea.
The Root joins a small but rapidly growing roster of professionally produced publications that exist only on the Internet. This approach avoids printing and delivery costs but draws less advertising and circulation revenue. They are closely watched by newspaper and magazine companies, which are trying to envision what may be an all-digital future.
The Washington Post Company has some experience in the field as publisher of the online magazine Slate, which Mr. Graham said provided some of the technology and expertise that has gone into The Root. Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate, is one of the people who have advised the creators of the new magazine.
“I know it’ll lose money at the outset, and I make no predictions about how long,” Mr. Graham said. “But obviously, we intend to make money eventually.”
It’s an irrefutable fact that Anatole Broyard, who for over a decade had served as a daily book critic for the New York Times and as a columnist and editor at the New York Times Book Review after that, is black.
This guy obviously believes that Broyard was "black" in an objective, biological sense. This is what liberal and black endorsement of the ODR accomplishes.
I see he's eating his words and taking the "black" back.
He switched his words because I told him he was wrong.
Quote:
Salsassin, on January 30th, 2008 at 8:49 am Said:
What a load of hogwash. Anatole Broyard was Creole. He was not White, he was not Black. That he hid his ancestry is true. He was never raised identified as Black though. Learn the facts before you write a review.
Matthew, on January 30th, 2008 at 10:54 am Said:
Salsassin:
Thanks for pointing that out. He was a Creole, so I should have omitted the term “irrefutable.”
Posted: Fri 01 Feb 2008 14:02 Post subject: Re: More propaganda from Henry Louis Gates, Jr.
Salsassin wrote:
Powell wrote:
Anatole Broyard's old enemy Henry Louis Gates, Jr. is promoting a new "black" online magazine (financed by rich whites, of course).
I wasn't aware that Gates and Broyard were enemies. Do you have a source for that?
To 'out' a man as racially really AA or Black when he either denied or never advertised that fact (and was of Creole lineage) shows 'hatred' and animosity on the part of Gates. IMO, be man enough to do so when the person is alive and able to defend thmselves. Don't wait until they are dead and they have no way to debunk you. Why wait if you're on a crusade for 'racial truth'?
P.S. Notice also in AA Lives (part 1) how GIDDY Gates was about learning of his male Euro lineage. He is quoted as to also say: 'Does that mean I only get half reparations?'. It is AAs like him who have the real problem with their race!!! A degreed scholar no less.....
Posted: Fri 01 Feb 2008 14:13 Post subject: Re: More propaganda from Henry Louis Gates, Jr.
Melani23 wrote:
To 'out' a man as racially really AA or Black when he either denied or never advertised that fact (and was of Creole lineage) shows 'hatred' and animosity on the part of Gates. ...
I think that Jaime's question was more about whether the two men actually knew each other before Broyard's death.
Posted: Fri 01 Feb 2008 14:28 Post subject: Re: More propaganda from Henry Louis Gates, Jr.
fwsweet wrote:
Melani23 wrote:
To 'out' a man as racially really AA or Black when he either denied or never advertised that fact (and was of Creole lineage) shows 'hatred' and animosity on the part of Gates. ...
I think that Jaime's question was more about whether the two men actually knew each other before Broyard's death.
Melani23's interpretation of "enemy" is the same as mine. To suggest, as Jaime does, that all enemies must be personally introduced to you or they are not enemies is ridiculous.
Posted: Fri 01 Feb 2008 14:40 Post subject: Re: More propaganda from Henry Louis Gates, Jr.
Melani23 wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
Powell wrote:
Anatole Broyard's old enemy Henry Louis Gates, Jr. is promoting a new "black" online magazine (financed by rich whites, of course).
I wasn't aware that Gates and Broyard were enemies. Do you have a source for that?
To 'out' a man as racially really AA or Black when he either denied or never advertised that fact (and was of Creole lineage) shows 'hatred' and animosity on the part of Gates. IMO, be man enough to do so when the person is alive and able to defend thmselves. Don't wait until they are dead and they have no way to debunk you. Why wait if you're on a crusade for 'racial truth'?
P.S. Notice also in AA Lives (part 1) how GIDDY Gates was about learning of his male Euro lineage. He is quoted as to also say: 'Does that mean I only get half reparations?'. It is AAs like him who have the real problem with their race!!! A degreed scholar no less.....
Attributing motives to others without any evidence of such. The guy is dead so exploring his ancestry does not affect him. Exploring why a person would hide his ancestry in this country is a valid subject for exploration. Where is your evidence he was trying to harm Broyard's memory in any way?
Posted: Fri 01 Feb 2008 14:48 Post subject: Re: More propaganda from Henry Louis Gates, Jr.
Powell wrote:
Melani23's interpretation of "enemy" is the same as mine. To suggest, as Jaime does, that all enemies must be personally introduced to you or they are not enemies is ridiculous.
Ah. This turns out to be about the semantics of "enemy." If I were to write a derogatory account of the life of Timur-i-Leng (who died long ago), would I be considered his "enemy"? Would his dessicated corpse be considered my "enemy"? Pointless. Semantics are never worth debating.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
past genocides, current realities, and the future implications this topic has for American society, especially AAs (who are effected the most), and those interested in the politics of race and privilege ad nauseum... Yeah, I get it. 
However, by supporting the ODR myth, AAs perpetuate Black inferiority and the singling out of Blacks as 'different', not like all other races. 
Because the ODR myth supports the notion that a separate category of 'Blacks' (AAs) are 'inferior' and that all other 'Blacks' are 'okay'. 
I think it is deeper and that some people internally feel these LSB types are 'a superior Black'. (IMO, a so-called 'superior Black' is one who first looks Black, lol. )
