Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Sat 10 May 2008 03:26 Post subject:
pianoplayer111 wrote:
But there are also many people who claim to be mixed when they are not...simply because they believe that it is "hip" or it makes them more acceptable somehow. I know I'm not the only one who has observed this.
I just wanted to add to this, to let everyone know that it's not just monoracial black, or those with the monoracial black phenotype that are under fire. Again, many people who are legitimately mixed - and with a very mixed look - are also lying too, just only what it is what they're mixed with. For some mulattoes, being part "plain ol' Anglo-Saxon" might not quench their thirst for attention, so they look for a more "exotic" ethnicity to claim. These people are just as bad, because in the end, they are lying.
Phil...allow me to reiterate the part where I said that one does NOT have to be of European phenotype to be of mixed ancestry. It seems you overlooked this. What I'm saying here is that mixture is somehow apparent in a person's physical appearance most of the time. Skin color is significant, but it is not an absolute in determining a person's racial makeup. There are many people of all hues who are racially mixed. No one is denying or disputing that. Other features should be taken into account and yes, observing a person's family members (both sides) is a fairly good indicator too.
You're still saying the same thing; just tip-toeing around it - I did not misinterpret you. You're entire basis for thinking that people are lying about their ancestry, is based your evaluation of their physical appearance.
You said its "obvious" that those persons are lying; how is it so obvious?
Quote:
You're the only one here saying that people in this thread assume that "dark-skinned African phenotype people can't possibly have mixed ancestry"... I certainly never said that at all.
This thread is specifically targetted towards black-looking people that claim multiple ancestries; I did not make that up. You, and others who have posted in this thread, doubt the claims of such people, because they don't look the part to you.
Quote:
..you're taking it personally and that makes me wonder.
Wonder about what?? No, I'm not "taking it personally", 'it' does not apply to me at all, and I am not the least bit offended.
Quote:
I'm not one to refer to others as "self-hating" so that is another erroneous statement on your part.
There are several allusions, in this thread referring to the supposed "self-esteem" issues, of said persons who claim multiple ancestries (those that you assume are lying). I paraphrased exactly what was being inferred indirectly.
Quote:
And did I not state that I was drawing on personal experiences/encounters in REAL LIFE?
Yes, I knew that. You described your experience, and concluded that people you talked to were making things up, after having seen what they look like. That was your reasoning.
This is why I asked you, how do you actually know that they were lying?- especially now that you claim to be aware thats persons of mixed ancestry can have any phenotype.
pianoplayer111 wrote:
At no time have I ever accused anyone on this forum of lying about their ancestry or who they are. Nor have I criticized anyone's self-identity, no matter what their phenotype.
Not anybody on this forum you havent, but what you describe about your personal experiences is exactly that. You asserted that those people who state multiple ancestries are "obviously lying"; this is a criticism of their self-identity.
Quote:
...naturally people become defensive when called on their actions
Who are you referring to? - because no actions mentioned in this thread apply to me.
Quote:
When a person suddenly starts spouting off nonsense about their "good hair" and 6, 000 fictional ethnicities in my presence without provocation (this has happened more than once) my BS detector goes off.
Normally multi-racial advocates encourage others to embrace, and speak openly about all of their ancestries. Isn't that supposed to be a postive thing??
It only seems to bother people when a black-looking person does this, since they are assumed to be deluded. I doubt your BS detector goes off at all, when people with non-black phenotypes talk about multiple ancestries.
Last edited by Phil345 on Sat 10 May 2008 05:16; edited 5 times in total
Posted: Sat 10 May 2008 04:43 Post subject: Re: A Sensitive Question...
Richard Miller wrote:
As a mulatto, I must say that when I see this, I feel the same way that someone who has earned the Medal of Honor might feel when they see a poser claiming to have earned it.
I applaud Richard Miller for at least being honest about this. He made similar comments in this thread about black-looking people that identify themselves as 'creole'.
This is the mentality, that I have noticed from alot of multi-racialist, that seem to imagine mutiracial ethnicity as a "status", that some (particularly black-looking people), are not deserving of.
For Richard, and like-minded people, the "movement" is not actually about self-identification, and advocating acknowledgement of multiple ancestries at all; its about racialism based on physical appearances, creating well defined lines, and keeping others in their place.
Otherwise, what would be the threat of somebody (of any phenotype) identifying as multi-racial, creole, or anything? - isn't that supposed to be the goal?
When the "multi-racial" category comes (which I hope happens soon), I imagine many of the multiracial advocates, will not be amused when too many black-looking folks (''posers"), dare to claim their multiple ancestries.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Sat 10 May 2008 05:25 Post subject: Re: A Sensitive Question...
Phil345 wrote:
Richard Miller wrote:
As a mulatto, I must say that when I see this, I feel the same way that someone who has earned the Medal of Honor might feel when they see a poser claiming to have earned it.
I applaud Richard Miller for at least being honest about this. He made similar comments in this thread about black-looking people that identify themselves as 'creole'.
This is the mentality, that I have noticed from alot of multi-racialist, that seem to imagine mutiracial ethnicity as a "status", that some (particularly black-looking people), are not deserving of.
For Richard, and like-minded people, the "movement" is not actually about self-identification, and advocating acknowledgement of multiple ancestries at all; its about racialism based on physical appearances, creating well defined lines, and keeping others in their place.
Otherwise, what would be the threat of somebody (of any phenotype) identifying as multi-racial, creole, or anything? - isn't that supposed to be the goal?
When the "multi-racial" category comes (which I hope happens soon), I imagine many of the multiracial advocates, will not be amused when too many black-looking folks (''posers"), dare to claim their multiple ancestries.
I haven't been here long, but it looks to me like you're a naysayer - you're out on a mission to attack those who are part of the movement.
Let me say that ever since I was a regular at Interracial Voice, I have never cared about "looks" when it comes to claiming mult-raciality. I DID, however, stress percentages of ancestry - which is something I still stand by. I don't care of you look like Marcus Garvey, or if you look like Dolph Lundgren - if you are, for the most part, half and half, you're mulatto like me.
In the case of Creoles, I was pointing out the peculiar "imbalance" of those who claim to be Creole - that's it. I'm not saying that everyone who appears to be monoracially black that claims to be Creole is lying, HOWEVER, I find it extremely peculiar that there are not an equal amount of those who look white AND an equal amount of those with a mixed phenotype that claim it.
Posted: Sat 10 May 2008 06:40 Post subject: Re: A Sensitive Question...
Richard Miller wrote:
I haven't been here long, but it looks to me like you're a naysayer - you're out on a mission to attack those who are part of the movement.
No, you are mistaken. I cant WAIT for there to be a fully recognized multiracial category; i think its the next stage in U.S racialism thats long overdue. I also welcome anybody to identify however they please- unlike yourself.
What concerns me is those of you from the "movement" that don't actually believe the things that you promote. All that jazz about ''protecting ones right to self identity", and promoting multi-racial identification for people with mixed ancestry, is just some talk that sounds nice. What you really believe in, is racial correctness, based on physical appearances.
I can't fathom any other reason why a person identifying with all of their ancestry would be a problem, and why you all are so bothered by this, when thats supposed to be your goal. You should be DELIGHTED to meet somebody who claims multiple ancestries; instead you disparage them for it, if they don't have the correct phenotype.
Clearly you think some persons are too black to be multi-racial, and are deluded to think they are deserving of that "medal of honor".
After all, who do those black people think they are, calling themselves "creole", and claiming to have different ancestries?! lol.
I would think it's funny if I ever met somebody with a strong SSA phenotype like this woman for example claim to have a United Nations like family tree. Like in addition to SSA ancestry , she would also claim to be part German, part Cherokee, part Dutch, part Chinese, part French, part Italian, part Indian, part Jewish, part Lebanese, part Korean, etc you get the point. I would be thinking in my head if she is mixed with damn near every ethnicity/race on the planet than why doesn't she have a racially ambiguous/exotic phenotype, why does she just look straight out Black. I would be thinking somebody in her family is definitely lying to her.
I probably sound a nutcase if I name all my ancestries or should I say genealogy. Start from my great-grandparents, the ancestries in my family are German, Syrian, Welsh, Ghanian, Irish, Scottish, Chinese, Hong kong and African. I don't claim all these ancestries, I just say I am Jamaican of African, European and Asian descent. Generally, people eyeball me as half black and white which is strange because while I don't look Asian I resemble that side of my family the most.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Sat 10 May 2008 11:47 Post subject: Re: A Sensitive Question...
There you go again; you keep saying that it's all about "looks" - I have no clue how many times I'm going to have to repeat myself, but that's not the case - it's about percentages. I've been in this game for ten years, and everyone who knows me knows this.
However, a black person who simply has one known white great-great-grandparent checking off both black and white - as if they had approximately equal amounts of both - is something I would find bothersome.
Maybe you don't care, but YOUR arguments here give credit to the one-droppist argument, "As black people, we're all mixed - you're the same as the rest of us." Someone with my stance can easily combat that argument. If someone were to say that to you, however, you'd be screwed.
You still haven't even acknowledged what I said about actual multiracial people who lie as well, nor have you acknowledge the examples I gave where I've done my homework to successfully confirm my suspicions. Obviously, that's because if you did, it would take away any credibility of what you're saying to me or accusing me of.
Either way, the fact that you're putting words into my mouth and making me out to have beliefs that I don't have is EXACTLY why you should have been ignored and left to beg for attention in the first place.
Last edited by Richard Miller on Sat 10 May 2008 13:25; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Sat 10 May 2008 12:00 Post subject:
Bischoff wrote:
I would think it's funny if I ever met somebody with a strong SSA phenotype like this woman for example claim to have a United Nations like family tree. Like in addition to SSA ancestry , she would also claim to be part German, part Cherokee, part Dutch, part Chinese, part French, part Italian, part Indian, part Jewish, part Lebanese, part Korean, etc you get the point. I would be thinking in my head if she is mixed with damn near every ethnicity/race on the planet than why doesn't she have a racially ambiguous/exotic phenotype, why does she just look straight out Black. I would be thinking somebody in her family is definitely lying to her.
This woman appears to be in her late thirties or early forties, so I doubt she'd make those claims. I mostly see this coming from young women, under the age of 30.
I agree, Richard...I worded my question very carefully so as not to offend anyone but this is what happens. You can't win...
Back to you, Phil...you have overlooked anything valid that I've said and you haven't contributed much in the way of a response besides jumping to conclusions about what I (or others with a white phenotype) supposedly "think" of darker individuals with mixed ancestry.
How are you so sure that I'm basing my observations purely on phenotype? Is it so impossible to believe that there are indeed people who spin yarns about their family background, for whatever reason? Like I said before...it is obvious when some people lie about these things. It isn't always about phenotype. If you're particularly familiar with a certain individual's family, who they are, you will know when they're being dishonest about certain things.
"This thread is specifically targeted towards black-looking people that claim multiple ancestries. You, and others who have posted in this thread, doubt the claims of such people, because they don't look the part to you".
*sigh* Phil, Phil, Phil... Now you're attributing motives here. If you will kindly read the opening lines of the thread, I clearly stated that skin color is NOT an absolute factor. My intentions in starting this thread were not to be divisive, mean-spirited, or to attack anyone. How many times do I have to say that this thread has nothing to do with anyone here?? I asked a simple question. I'm simply inviting discussion. It is not intended to be offensive or harmful.
You, on the other hand, have basically accused me of creating a thread to stir up trouble and "target" darker-hued folks. This is a ridiculous notion and it is false. And if you aren't offended by my statements, then you wouldn't assume that you know what my intentions are/were. It is as simple as that. You don't seem to be able to accept that some people do indeed lie about this. Some people do in fact have issues that cause them to lie about this to impress others. It has nothing to do with me supposedly being biased because of a darker color...you're the one saying this. Richard himself stated that even truly multiracial people do this sometimes and I suppose it's true.
I don't claim to be affiliated with any movement but I will tell you that I'm one of the most staunch advocates of a person's right to self-identify. What I have OBSERVED and NOTICED is that there are people, in the real world, who invent a mixed identity that they don't have. I didn't say that they don't have a right to call themselves this or that if they want to...but it does happen. Why they do this I don't know, but it does happen. It is not a judgement of their character on my part, it is an observation and mere curiosity.
In response to Bischoff...I personally have encountered many women who look that way who claim all that and more. Well, like I said, one cannot always judge by phenotype but most of the time isn't that a good indicator? It isn't necessarily always about the shade of a person's skin. There's the person's natural hair texture, there's bone structure, all of that should be considered too. I'll admit that I'm skeptical of people who make these claims when they do not appear to be mixed with anything in the least. Does that make me close-minded or a bad person? No. It simply means that I don't believe whatever I hear. Not everyone who claims a multiracial identity or multiple ancestries is telling the truth.
Posted: Sat 10 May 2008 12:38 Post subject: Re: A Sensitive Question...
Richard Miller wrote:
a black person who simply has one known white great-great-grandparent checking off both black and white - as if they had approximately equal amounts of both - is something I would find bothersome.
If I follow this increasingly heated debate correctly, one side says that they see people who claim to be mixed and yet who look completely "Black" in their eyes as deceitful. The other side is saying that this perception (of deceipt or "BS") is itself reprehensible and critical of freely chosen self-identity.
If these are the respective competing theses here, then I must side with Phil345. According to a well-known published geneticist "everyone is mixed and always has been." This is an important piece of factual information. Why should someone's adopting this valid and factually accurate stance bother anyone, no matter what they look like, no matter in which ethnicity they were raised? Rule 2.6 forbids criticism of ethnoracial identity. This argument does not do that, implicitly criticizing admission of genetic admixture rather than ethnicity, but it is a strange argument nonetheless.
When this thread started, I hoped it would unfold in the direction of opining why people switch to claiming mixed ancestry. Is it because they have learned something about genetics? Because they are genealogists who shake their family trees to examine what falls out? Do they admit to being mixed in front of some audiences but not others? I still hope that it moves in these directions. Specifically, what drives people to claim mixedness some times but not other times?
Simply re-stating the thesis, "I dislike People who claim admixture but do not look mixed to my eyes," and the antithesis, "Such dislike is reprehensible," is getting us nowhere. Let's move on, folks.
I was hoping you'd show up. Well, it appears that Phil and I are at odds on this matter. I wouldn't say it "bothers" me that some people claim to be mixed...I'm simply curious. That is hardly a criticism.
I too hoped that the discussion would move towards that. Nope. I don't "dislike" people who make such claims...I wonder what motivates them to do so. If certain people lie about this, it isn't an admission of admixture by my definition...it is a falsehood. They shouldn't be condemned but it is worth looking into. I like to understand more about other people. What could have been a civil, thought-provoking discussion turned into a fiasco.
However, as the starter of this thread, I will be the one to end it.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Sat 10 May 2008 13:47 Post subject:
Good Lord,
Let me repeat myself, YET AGAIN. For the millionth time, I DO NOT GO BY LOOKS WHEN IT COMES TO ONE'S ETHNICITY!!!
Let me reapeat once more:
I DO NOT GO BY LOOKS WHEN IT COMES TO ONE'S ETHNICITY!!!
Again:
I DO NOT GO BY LOOKS WHEN IT COMES TO ONE'S ETHNICITY!!!
Is that enough for everyone here? Am I going to be made to repeat this again? Hold on, let me get it out of the way once more:
I DO NOT GO BY LOOKS WHEN IT COMES TO ONE'S ETHNICITY!!!
I told everyone here, what I go by is PERCENTAGE - because afterall:
I DO NOT GO BY LOOKS WHEN IT COMES TO ONE'S ETHNICITY!!!
Again, it's percentage. Yes, we're all mixed to some degree - but when people say that, I equate to someone telling patient who is dying of cancer, "We're all dying, really."
I've said this many times as: If someone claims an UNUSUALLY HIGH NUMBER of ethnicities, or ethnicities THAT ARE RARE IN THE US, then THOSE THINGS are what prompt me to call their bluff - NOT THEIR LOOKS!
Phil can choose to be silenced when being told by a one-droppist that, "As black people, we're all mixed - you're the same as the rest of us," but I sure as hell won't.
Last edited by Richard Miller on Sat 10 May 2008 14:29; edited 3 times in total
Posted: Sat 10 May 2008 15:21 Post subject: Re: A Sensitive Question...
Richard Miller wrote:
Maybe you don't care, but YOUR arguments here give credit to the one-droppist argument..
They absolutely do not further any ''one drop argument", and actually just the opposite. Identifying with multiple ancestries is the antithesis of the ODR, which anybody should be able to do. You however, are bothered when people of predominant african descent and/or appearance identify thusly (for reasons that you have stated, and reiterated very clearly), and are inclined to believe that they are lying, or deluded.
Quote:
"As black people, we're all mixed - you're the same as the rest of us." Someone with my stance can easily combat that argument. If someone were to say that to you, however, you'd be screwed.
No, I wouldn't. Somebody with my argument, would tell such a person that they should identify as mixed if thats what they believe themselves to be, rather then try to inforce "black" identity on other mixed people.
Quote:
Either way, the fact that you're putting words into my mouth and making me out to have beliefs that I don't....
I have not put any words into you, or anybody elses mouths. I quoted you directly, in addition to providing a link to another thread, where you have repeated stated your concerns about "black" people (black-looking people), who claim multiple ancestries, multiracial and/or "creole" identity, and your assumptions that they are ''posers" who are lying.
Quote:
Just to let everyone know, I'm not getting "touchy-feely" or "sensitive" about the topic of this thread.
Neither am I. Some are imagining sparks flying, but I viewed this thread as being a rather civil discussion.
I worded my question very carefully so as not to offend anyone but this is what happens.
Richard Miller wrote:
Just to let everyone know, I'm not getting "touchy-feely" or "sensitive" about the topic of this thread.
Phil345 wrote:
Neither am I. Some are imagining sparks flying, but I viewed this thread as being a rather civil discussion.
My concern is not with anyone being offended. My concern is with the thread leading to some insights that inform about the U.S. color line. Discussions of personal likes and dislikes are sterile, seldom fruitful. On the other hand, it would be great to hear opinions on why people choose to acknowledge mixedness in some cases but not in others. Asking whether people are "lying" about being mixed or unmixed is as meaningless as asking if they are "lying" about liking chocolate ice cream. It is inherently subjective and personal. On the other hand, asking why people sometimes claim to like chocolate ice cream and other times deny liking it is interesting.
Back to you, Phil...you have overlooked anything valid that I've said and you haven't contributed much in the way of a response besides jumping to conclusions about what I (or others with a white phenotype) supposedly "think" of darker individuals with mixed ancestry.
I didnt "jump" to any conclusions. I paraphrased things that you and others stated. I didn't come and make this thread about doubting the claims of black-looking people who claim multiple ancestries; it was already about that from the first post.
Quote:
How are you so sure that I'm basing my observations purely on phenotype?
You said so from the start in one of your anecdotes (about people you don't personally know), when stating that it was clearly obvious to you that they were lying about having multiple ancestries, when you looked at their picture...
You have also, reiterated your reasoning several times. Like you do here:
Quote:
I personally have encountered many women who look that way who claim all that and more. Well, like I said, one cannot always judge by phenotype but most of the time isn't that a good indicator? ...
I'll admit that I'm skeptical of people who make these claims when they do not appear to be mixed with anything in the least.
...
Quote:
I asked a simple question. I'm simply inviting discussion. It is not intended to be offensive or harmful.
Nobody was offended.
Quote:
You, on the other hand, have basically accused me of creating a thread to stir up trouble and "target" darker-hued folks. This is a ridiculous notion and it is false.
I didnt say anything about "starting up trouble", but this thread WAS about dark-hued black-looking people, that claim multiple ancestries. Those were the assumed liars that you, and other posters, were discussing, and debating the self-esteem of.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Sat 10 May 2008 15:55 Post subject: Re: A Sensitive Question...
I'm going to show you where you're conveniently not paying attention to anything I'm saying, in your attempt to make me out to be some kind of "colorist":
1.
Phil345 wrote:
You however, are bothered when people of predominant african descent and/or appearance identify thusly (for reasons that you have stated, and reiterated very clearly), and are inclined to believe that they are lying, or deluded.
Richard Miller wrote:
I've said this many times as: If someone claims an UNUSUALLY HIGH NUMBER of ethnicities, or ethnicities THAT ARE RARE IN THE US, then THOSE THINGS are what prompt me to call their bluff - NOT THEIR LOOKS!
2.
Phil345 wrote:
I have not put any words into you, or anybody elses mouths. I quoted you directly, in addition to providing a link to another thread, where you have repeated stated your concerns about "black" people (black-looking people), who claim multiple ancestries, multiracial and/or "creole" identity, and your assumptions that they are ''posers" who are lying.
Richard Miller wrote:
In the case of Creoles, I was pointing out the peculiar "imbalance" of those who claim to be Creole - that's it. I'm not saying that everyone who appears to be monoracially black that claims to be Creole is lying, HOWEVER, I find it extremely peculiar that there are not an equal amount of those who look white AND an equal amount of those with a mixed phenotype that claim it.
Somehow, I have this strange feeling that I could do this all day with you.
By the way, one more my quotes I'd like to bring up:
Richard Miller wrote:
You still haven't even acknowledged what I said about actual multiracial people who lie as well, nor have you acknowledge the examples I gave where I've done my homework to successfully confirm my suspicions.
Posted: Sat 10 May 2008 16:13 Post subject: Re: A Sensitive Question...
pianoplayer111 wrote:
I've noticed that many people (no one here) but in real life or on other sites claim to be mixed with this and that. Or they claim to be "light-skinned" with "good hair". When I see photos of these individuals, nothing could be further from the truth. It is obvious, IMO, that many people lie about being mixed...claiming that they are either biracial or multiracial when in fact no one in their family has mixed for generations.
I don't know if people who do this are attempting to shore up their self-esteem and I don't wish to sound judgemental, but I've heard many people say: "I'm mixed with Cherokee/Puerto Rican/Russian/Chinese", etc. Then they follow up with comments about their so-called light skin and good hair. Once more, this is not in reference to anyone at all on this forum because I respect everyone's personal identity. I'm simply wondering if anyone here has noticed this too? It seems to be politically incorrect to wonder whether some people lie about these things. I've known people who do this and it bothers me on occasion, because those are often the same types who will turn around and accuse a person who actually IS mixed of "self-hate" or "denial".
I apologize in advance if my question is misinterpreted in some way as being offensive. This is not my intent. So does anyone know people who lie about this? Do you know their family personally? And if so, how does it make you feel? Do these people then attempt to invalidate/dismiss your own (true) identity as a person of mixed heritage?
I have not read this entire thread yet, so please pardon me if what I'm about to say has already been addressed - How do you know whether or not a person is mixed and/or how far back their mixing occurred? You mentioned looking at them and also asked if any of us know people who do this and whether we know their family. If you suspect someone is lying about being mixed and you know their entire family, then maybe you can conclude that they are lying. Barring that, it is almost impossible to legitimately conclude that they are lying based on their looks. Am I misunderstanding something here?
As a person who KNOWS that she is mixed, I have had people insist to me, to my face, that they do not believe I am part black. On the flip side, I have a niece who is most likely eyeballed as "black". I wonder if she would fall into the assumed category of the mixing must have occurred generations ago. Yet, her father is Nicaraguan. Another example - if my high yella, medium brown haired, blue-green eyed "black" father spoke of this Scottish ancestor or that Blackfoot Indian grandmother, no one would doubt him. However, I wonder if his older FULL brother who has medium brown skin, dark brown/black hair and brown eyes said the same thing, if he would be assumed to be a liar.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
Now you're attributing motives here. If you will kindly read the opening lines of the thread, I clearly stated that skin color is NOT an absolute factor. My intentions in starting this thread were not to be divisive, mean-spirited, or to attack anyone. How many times do I have to say that this thread has nothing to do with anyone here?? I asked a simple question. I'm simply inviting discussion. It is not intended to be offensive or harmful.
I don't "dislike" people who make such claims...I wonder what motivates them to do so. If certain people lie about this, it isn't an admission of admixture by my definition...it is a falsehood. They shouldn't be condemned but it is worth looking into. I like to understand more about other people. What could have been a civil, thought-provoking discussion turned into a fiasco.
Am I misunderstanding something here?