Posted: Wed 06 Feb 2008 14:20 Post subject: Bliss Broyard: Symbol of invisible blackness
Quote:
February 5, 2008
NY Times
Famous Black Lives Through DNA’s Prism
By FELICIA R. LEE
Correction Appended
“African-American Lives 2,” a four-part series on PBS that begins on Wednesday night, belies its sleepy name with the poetry of history, the magic of science and the allure of the family trees of Morgan Freeman, Chris Rock, Tina Turner, Don Cheadle, Tom Joyner and Maya Angelou.
It is the latest incarnation of the highly rated, critically successful star genealogy program that its host, the Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., presented in 2006. Then Oprah Winfrey, Chris Tucker, Quincy Jones and Whoopi Goldberg were among Professor Gates’s eight guests for “African-American Lives.” That was followed in 2007 by “Oprah’s Roots.”
This time scientists use DNA samples, and scholars peruse slave ship records, wills and other documents to recreate the histories of 12 people, including Professor Gates and one Everywoman guest.
“I conceived of these series as roots in a test tube,” Professor Gates says early in “Lives,” which will be broadcast on most PBS stations in two hourlong episodes on Wednesday and two on Feb. 13. Through the prism of the individual stories of rapes of black women, the failed promise of Reconstruction, the great migration of black Southerners to the North, the struggle for education, land, and freedom, Professor Gates lays bare the basic contradiction of the American dream.
Mr. Rock can be seen wiping away a tear after learning that his great-great-grandfather fought in the Civil War, served in the South Carolina Legislature, and died owning dozens of acres of land. He never knew any of that history, Mr. Rock says in the program. He recounts growing up in a working-class Brooklyn neighborhood and being bused to a white school where he was bullied.
“Until I lucked into a comedy club at, you know, age 20, just on a whim, I assumed I would pick up things for white people for the rest of my life,” Mr. Rock says. “If I’d known this, it would have taken away the inevitability that I was going to be nothing.”
Along with the triumphs are the inevitable tragedies. Tom Joyner, the celebrity radio personality, is shaken to learn that in 1915 an all-white jury in South Carolina convicted his two great-uncles of killing a white man. They were prosperous landowners, but were sent to the electric chair, even though evidence uncovered by the “Lives” researchers suggests their innocence. Mr. Joyner and Professor Gates said they planned to petition the South Carolina government to exonerate them posthumously.
Mr. Joyner is seen in “Lives” gathered with his extended family, reading old newspaper articles and learning a story that had been lost.
“I have had mixed emotions — grief, anger, pride,” Mr. Joyner said in an interview about the program’s revelations, adding, “If you feel — and all of us have these feelings — that you can’t go any further, think about the people in your past and what they survived.”
In addition to the celebrities, the “Lives” interview subjects include Bliss Broyard, a writer whose father, Anatole Broyard, a New York Times book critic and editor, was black and passed for white; the Rev. Peter J. Gomes, a Harvard theologian; Linda Johnson Rice, president and chief executive of the company that publishes Ebony and Jet magazines; Jackie Joyner-Kersee, the Olympic gold-medal athlete; and Kathleen Henderson, a University of Dayton administrator who competed with more than 2,000 entrants to be on the program.
Professor Gates, the co-founder of www.AfricanDNA.com and the director of the W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard, keeps things going at a rapid pace for his guests. He whips out photographs of former slave masters (who were sometimes relatives), pinpoints the African countries of ancestors and travels to Ireland himself to track down his Irish roots. In the last episode everyone learns his or her percentage of European, Native American and African blood.
“These stories are much more in-depth than those in ‘African-American Lives,’ ” Mr. Gates said in a recent telephone interview. “Then, a lot of documents had not been digitized, and we’ve learned to interpret the DNA testing better, with more subtlety and sophistication.”
In one of the stories Morgan Freeman puzzles over the nature of the relationship between his white great-great-grandfather and African-American great-great-grandmother, who had eight children together. His great-great grandfather’s employer owned her.
“I don’t know, really,” Mr. Freeman replies when Professor Gates asks him how that information makes him feel.
But, in a twist, the “Lives” researchers discovered that Mr. Freeman’s white great-great grandfather sold land to his biracial sons. And they found the great-great-grandparents’ headstones on that land in Mississippi, side by side, bearing the same last name and surrounded by the graves of their children.
None of the guests are 100 percent anything. Maya Angelou shakes her head in sorrow as Mr. Gates tells her that her black great-grandmother, 17-year-old Mary Lee, was impregnated by her 50-year-old white former master (who forced her to name another man as the father) and ended up in the poor house along with her child. That child was Ms. Angelou’s grandmother, Marguerite.
“That poor little black girl, physically and psychologically bruised,” Ms. Angelou murmurs.
“You never know how you’re going to come here,” Ms. Angelou said in an interview about her participation in “Lives” and her ancestor Mary Lee. “People have great weddings, and they’re lucky to have it last five years.”
Ms. Angelou said she initially disliked the idea of using celebrities to reclaim history but realized that they would attract viewers to examine the complexity of this country’s roots. “Nothing human can be alien to me,” Ms. Angelou said. “If we could internalize just a portion of that, it could get us away from the blithering idiocy of racism.”
And what is race? Professor Gates asks. Ms. Broyard, who grew up thinking she was white, says in “Lives” that she believes that her father, who died in 1990, “passed” to protect his children from racism. She does not feel she has the right to call herself “black” now because it designates not just physicality but lived experience, she tells Professor Gates.
“It’s a complicated message to get across,” Ms. Broyard said in an interview. “We can find the geographic origins of our ancestors, but it doesn’t mean that race is a biological destiny.”
Still, Professor Gates sees the evolving use of DNA and records searches as ways to revolutionize how science is taught in schools. PBS is using the Web site pbs.org/aalives2 and other resources to help educators and others interesting in pursuing the information in the series.
“Forget going into a classroom and saying, ‘I am going to teach you about Watson and Crick and the double helix,’ ” Professor Gates said. “Imagine if I could say, ‘With this cotton swab, we can tell you where your ancestors come from in Africa.’ ”
Correction: February 6, 2008
An article in The Arts on Tuesday about “African-American Lives 2,” a PBS series that explores the genealogy of prominent African-Americans, included an incomplete address for the genealogy Web site co-founded by the host of the series, Henry Louis Gates Jr. It is www.AfricanDNA.com, not AfricanDNA.com. Because of an editing error, the article referred incorrectly at one point to the actor whose white great-great-grandfather sold land to his biracial sons. He is Morgan Freeman, not Mr. Morgan.
Posted: Wed 06 Feb 2008 20:39 Post subject: Invisible blackness
Salsassin wrote:
Invisible Black ancestry. Yes.
I use the term "invisible blackness" essentially as Frank uses it: The idea that any "black blood" makes a person "black" in every social, racial and ethnic sense.
Bliss never corrects people who call her "black." She even features some of their quotes on her web site. She accepts the idea that she was never "white" even when she had no idea about her father's partial African ancestry and considered herself purely white. She only "thought" she was white. Bliss is a convert to the concept of invisible blackness.
I agree A.D., and its a major threat for several reasons.
1. It promotes the idea of inferior black blood - only black blood is so damaging that it can "never" be washed out.
2. It promotes ethnic kidnapping - anybody with any black or intermediate features, or even any black blood, is supposed to identify as black, whether they like it or not: for political and moral purposes.
3. It promotes the idea of essential difference - "black" people are so different from "white" people, that a distintinction between the two needs to be made, even when they otherwise look identical, act identical, and hold the same beliefs. Consider, on the other hand, how many "white-washed" asians feel no need to ever mention their "asianness", and how others rarely bring it up - though it is obvious that they are "asian", it is seen as meaningless. In the case of "blacks", though its obvious that the person is not ethnically black, the fact that they have black blood makes it neccessary to draw a distiniction.
I agree A.D., and its a major threat for several reasons.
1. It promotes the idea of inferior black blood - only black blood is so damaging that it can "never" be washed out.
2. It promotes ethnic kidnapping - anybody with any black or intermediate features, or even any black blood, is supposed to identify as black, whether they like it or not: for political and moral purposes.
Well she is saying something different than that, read the part AD made bold in the post:And what is race? Professor Gates asks. Ms. Broyard, who grew up thinking she was white, says in “Lives” that she believes that her father, who died in 1990, “passed” to protect his children from racism. She does not feel she has the right to call herself “black” now because it designates not just physicality but lived experience, she tells Professor Gates.
“It’s a complicated message to get across,” Ms. Broyard said in an interview. “We can find the geographic origins of our ancestors, but it doesn’t mean that race is a biological destiny.”
3. It promotes the idea of essential difference - "black" people are so different from "white" people, that a distintinction between the two needs to be made, even when they otherwise look identical, act identical, and hold the same beliefs. Consider, on the other hand, how many "white-washed" asians feel no need to ever mention their "asianness", and how others rarely bring it up - though it is obvious that they are "asian", it is seen as meaningless. In the case of "blacks", though its obvious that the person is not ethnically black, the fact that they have black blood makes it neccessary to draw a distiniction.
I work with a guy who is Jewish and he always 'reminds me he is a white guy' You know we white guys... Hey when your white like me...
It was entertaining!
I was looking forward to the DNA portion like the 1st series but maybe it will be shown next week. It would have been interesting using each person's DNA as their own control, and see if the region of Africa is consistant regarding origin. or in the case of Ms Broyard, the juxtaposition of Y chrosome distance and what it registers vs MtDNA. Or a comparison of the latter with phenotype in all cases!
I liked that the show focused more on recorded history and real stories, rather than DNA 'results' and admixture percentages; which I consider to be highly speculative, and ultimately meaningless...I could do without that.
I liked that the show focused more on recorded history and real stories, rather than DNA 'results' and admixture percentages; which I consider to be highly speculative, and ultimately meaningless...I could do without that.
With the DNA results, African Americans would know the tribal affiliation of their ancestors, or better said, the cluster to which group(s) they belong. Nothing more!
In Part I of the series, one interesting part was that Chris Tucker results, placed him within present day Angola (S.Central Africa) as opposed to the typical West African cluster.
Last night stories were awe inspiring!
Another thing I noticed was that all of the participants were of an educated, upper middle class stratum and therefore represented the tip of the pyramid regarding success and self worth within the societal structure.
If a different sample size were taken, say inner city representatives, what would the stories tell?
I liked that the show focused more on recorded history and real stories, rather than DNA 'results' and admixture percentages; which I consider to be highly speculative, and ultimately meaningless...I could do without that.
With the DNA results, African Americans would know the tribal affiliation of their ancestors, or better said, the cluster to which group(s) they belong. Nothing more!
In Part I of the series, one interesting part was that Chris Tucker results, placed him within present day Angola (S.Central Africa) as opposed to the typical West African cluster.
Last night stories were awe inspiring!
Another thing I noticed was that all of the participants were of an educated, upper middle class stratum and therefore represented the tip of the pyramid regarding success and self worth within the societal structure.
If a different sample size were taken, say inner city representatives, what would the stories tell?
Angola was among the top four areas, so it isn't that suprising.
With the DNA results, African Americans would know the tribal affiliation of their ancestors, or better said, the cluster to which group(s) they belong. Nothing more!
Less than even that. Its more like vauge geographic origin (and only probable), of a tiny fraction of somebody's ancestors. Which means next to nothing about the scope of a persons African origins.
Quote:
Another thing I noticed was that all of the participants were of an educated, upper middle class stratum and therefore represented the tip of the pyramid regarding success and self worth within the societal structure.
I didnt notice that at all. They were all celebrities, but most of them did not come from "educated upper middle class" backgrounds: Tina Turner, Don Cheadle, Chris Rock, Morgan Freeman, ect.
Quote:
If a different sample size were taken, say inner city representatives, what would the stories tell?
It would probably be just as interesting. Most of celebs featured came from the same socio-economic backgrounds as "inner city" blacks do.
Less than even that. Its more like vauge geographic origin (and only probable), of a tiny fraction of somebody's ancestors. Which means next to nothing about the scope of a persons African origins.
You are probably right but for those interested, to name a place or location where their ancestors may have come from, is always positive.
I realize many African Americans may not want to know this but again for those who are curious, it is there!
it was said
Quote:
I didnt notice that at all. They were all celebrities, but most of them did not come from "educated upper middle class" backgrounds: Tina Turner, Don Cheadle, Chris Rock, Morgan Freeman, ect.
The aforementioned names are well know in all quarters so they have some degree of recognition, status and name recall.
Gates, Gomes, Higgenbotham, etc are academics.
it was said
Quote:
It would probably be just as interesting. Most of celebs featured came from the same socio-economic backgrounds as "inner city" blacks do.
To me, there is a big difference between the people profiled and those presently part of the 'inner city' in urban USA.
The aforementioned names are well know in all quarters so they have some degree of recognition, status and name recall.
Yes they were all celebrities, but most of them do not have origin in priveledged "upperclass" families, and have family history from the same socio-economic background as "inner city" people. This is why I don't understand your contention that reasearching the ancestry of a group of "inner city" people would have markedly different results.
Like Oprah for example....Whoopi Goldberg...and most people profiled on the show.
Quote:
To me, there is a big difference between the people profiled and those presently part of the 'inner city' in urban USA.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1084 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Fri 08 Feb 2008 15:04 Post subject:
I was a bit perplexed at how Gates seemed to vascillate between applying the ODR (by saying things about Broyard discovering what she "really" is) on the one hand, and then sort of half-supporting her father regarding his exercising his ability to choose a White designation.
I thought the segment about Bliss Boyard was very interesting. Being Black myself, I agree with her statement about being black is more than just physical appearance. Its more of an experience and how you grow up. I wouldnt and dont consider Bliss black. I just see her has a "white" woman with a degree of African Ancestry. But, I do think she was cheated out her heritage because the creole culture and heritage of her father is amazing. I know this personally because my dad is creole. Its more complex then just saying he was a "black" man cause the creoles didnt consider themselves as such. My dad doesnt consider himself black do this day. Its more like a cultural marker. If I was her, i probably would be angry too.(she did say that she felt cheated out of knowing about her fathers past and family). I did notice how Gates tried to push of her genetic admixture results to 20 percent instead of the 17.8 percent. Its almost the eqivalent of someone being 80 percent african and 20 percent europeon, but in reverse. I look at genetic admixture tests with a healthy grain of salt though.
in USA, social class stratum association is never absolute!
All the professionals profiled, regardless of craft they pursue, are representative of that class stratum they came from and where they are presently. That to me is something that cannot be quantified but the people mentioned have a quality and view of life plus their motivation that sucess can be achieved despite the environmental negativism that is always present.
I am only saying that we should take a sample size of those who live in an urban area (lets say Detroit), of those who appear unmotivated, etc and profile their lives in the same way as the PBS series did and see what we come up with. Just playing the advocate!
I would venture to say it is people like those who succeed since 'success' is in their blood (highly unlikely but I cannot phrase it otherwise) as evidenced by the works of their forebears!
Another thing I noticed was that all of the participants were of an educated, upper middle class stratum and therefore represented the tip of the pyramid regarding success and self worth within the societal structure.
If a different sample size were taken, say inner city representatives, what would the stories tell?
WTF??Those people on the show weren't from upper middle class background.The people on the show were mainly all from "normal" backgrounds.
Phil345 wrote:
I liked that the show focused more on recorded history and real stories, rather than DNA 'results' and admixture percentages; which I consider to be highly speculative, and ultimately meaningless...I could do without that.
I agree Phil.What I liked most and what they all made it a point to make clear is that being "Black" is about being of African descent but mainly shared experiences and culture.After the part where they gave the DNA results they all made it clear that having X amount of Euro DNA and knowing that amount won't have any impact on their Black identity.Being "Black" is what they live and will die for.
The aforementioned names are well know in all quarters so they have some degree of recognition, status and name recall.
Yes they were all celebrities, but most of them do not have origin in priveledged "upperclass" families, and have family history from the same socio-economic background as "inner city" people. This is why I don't understand your contention that reasearching the ancestry of a group of "inner city" people would have markedly different results.
Like Oprah for example....Whoopi Goldberg...and most people profiled on the show.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
