Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Wed 04 Jun 2008 00:07 Post subject:
anonymouse wrote:
I know he wasn't called white when he was in Menudo (yes I know I am dating myself) . . .
Hey, I was around in those days, too! That doesn't exactly make us old, if that's what you're implying! I recall girls in my late grammar school days (1983/84 or so) being nuts about Menudo.
I have never heard any refer to ether Ricky Martin or Jennifer Lopez as white.
Where I work, the TV is often tuned to The View in the morning. I recall Joy Behar once saying something like (referring to Ricky Martin): "That white boy can dance!" One of the other members said, "He's not white. He's Hispanic. He's Puerto Rican." Joy retorted by saying something similar to, "Are you telling me he's not a white boy? You can be Hispanic and white. Just look at him. He looks like a relative of mine, and I'm Italian-American. Many Puerto Ricans are white."
She just opened another bag of worms. Italian-Americans Puerto Ricans. Ethnic whites. People from both groups can be mistaken for each other.
I friend of mine J Marzano said to me in a conversation about identity
"Italians know we have black ancestry"
"I identify as Italian, not white"
"I'm white in that I'm caucasian"
to her white in the 1st example meant W.A.S.P. those are the real white people...as she put it.
Another friend of mine J.Martinelli (Sicilian) married to a Dominican woman...has always dated black hispanic and italian women
"I'm Sicilian-American, not white
but I am caucasian"
I have a pretty good list of examples that show that Italian-Americans may have a very different or complex view of race themselves.
Obviously, Joy was calling him white based on phenotype. I honestly don't know how Ricky Martin identifies.
But by the time he started Living La Vida Loca, more people referred to him as white. Maybe it was the dancing...
Or his phenotye combined with his name. If there was an "ez" after Martin, I don't think many people would have referred to him as "white."
I agree, his name is hispanic and the song had a strong rock feel to it which was pressed into everyones mind. It doesn't sound like latin music, he didn't sing with a spanish accent, and most didn't know he was one of the kids from Menudo
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Wed 04 Jun 2008 03:50 Post subject:
gemini072 wrote:
I friend of mine J Marzano said to me in a conversation about identity
"Italians know we have black ancestry"
"I identify as Italian, not white"
"I'm white in that I'm caucasian"
to her white in the 1st example meant W.A.S.P. those are the real white people...as she put it.
Another friend of mine J.Martinelli (Sicilian) married to a Dominican woman...has always dated black hispanic and italian women
"I'm Sicilian-American, not white
but I am caucasian"
I have a pretty good list of examples that show that Italian-Americans may have a very different or complex view of race themselves.[/color]
The only Italian-Americans I get that from are the "too cool to be white" types who have mostly non-white friends.
Posted: Wed 04 Jun 2008 06:15 Post subject: Joy Behar
gemini072 wrote:
William wrote:
caribj wrote:
I have never heard any refer to ether Ricky Martin or Jennifer Lopez as white.
Where I work, the TV is often tuned to The View in the morning. I recall Joy Behar once saying something like (referring to Ricky Martin): "That white boy can dance!" One of the other members said, "He's not white. He's Hispanic. He's Puerto Rican." Joy retorted by saying something similar to, "Are you telling me he's not a white boy? You can be Hispanic and white. Just look at him. He looks like a relative of mine, and I'm Italian-American. Many Puerto Ricans are white."
She just opened another bag of worms. Italian-Americans Puerto Ricans. Ethnic whites. People from both groups can be mistaken for each other.
I friend of mine J Marzano said to me in a conversation about identity
"Italians know we have black ancestry"
"I identify as Italian, not white"
"I'm white in that I'm caucasian"
to her white in the 1st example meant W.A.S.P. those are the real white people...as she put it.
Another friend of mine J.Martinelli (Sicilian) married to a Dominican woman...has always dated black hispanic and italian women
"I'm Sicilian-American, not white
but I am caucasian"
I have a pretty good list of examples that show that Italian-Americans may have a very different or complex view of race themselves.
Obviously, Joy was calling him white based on phenotype. I honestly don't know how Ricky Martin identifies.
Good for Joy Behar! Too many "whites" let themselves be bullied about "race" and fear to give their own opinions.
Of course nearly every mainstream newspaper that discusses the difference between "Hispanics" and "whites" uses the term "non-Hispanic whites" - thus leaving Hispanics the option of calling themselves white.
No one points out the contradiction in that - being "white" and eligible for "minority" benefits at the same time (or at least they aren't printed).
Why? Hispanics come in all colors, we are told. Spokesmen for American "blacks" claim that "blacks" come in all colors. How about "blacks" versus "non-black whites"?
Gays are being increasingly recognized as a physically invisible minority - as in "Mr. Smith is the first known or open gay to...." Despite the ODR, no one says, "Mr. Jones is the first known or acknowledged black to..."
Posted: Wed 04 Jun 2008 12:41 Post subject: Re: Joy Behar
Powell wrote:
gemini072 wrote:
William wrote:
caribj wrote:
I have never heard any refer to ether Ricky Martin or Jennifer Lopez as white.
Where I work, the TV is often tuned to The View in the morning. I recall Joy Behar once saying something like (referring to Ricky Martin): "That white boy can dance!" One of the other members said, "He's not white. He's Hispanic. He's Puerto Rican." Joy retorted by saying something similar to, "Are you telling me he's not a white boy? You can be Hispanic and white. Just look at him. He looks like a relative of mine, and I'm Italian-American. Many Puerto Ricans are white."
She just opened another bag of worms. Italian-Americans Puerto Ricans. Ethnic whites. People from both groups can be mistaken for each other.
I friend of mine J Marzano said to me in a conversation about identity
"Italians know we have black ancestry"
"I identify as Italian, not white"
"I'm white in that I'm caucasian"
to her white in the 1st example meant W.A.S.P. those are the real white people...as she put it.
Another friend of mine J.Martinelli (Sicilian) married to a Dominican woman...has always dated black hispanic and italian women
"I'm Sicilian-American, not white
but I am caucasian"
I have a pretty good list of examples that show that Italian-Americans may have a very different or complex view of race themselves.
Obviously, Joy was calling him white based on phenotype. I honestly don't know how Ricky Martin identifies.
Good for Joy Behar! Too many "whites" let themselves be bullied about "race" and fear to give their own opinions.
I wish someone could have a conversation not with whites, but with people according to their ethnic/heritage. Get a large group of Jews/Hebrew people and have a discussion with questions, a group of Italians, Irish-Americans, etc etc
For example someone did a study on Italian Americans and there was a section that showed most Italian-American men don't go to college, most continue in family businesses, trades, neighborhood business and connections. Even if they no longer live in 'the neighborhood' they have or make connections with other Italians thru family/friend associates.
Or the income education level of Jewish americans.
Of course nearly every mainstream newspaper that discusses the difference between "Hispanics" and "whites" uses the term "non-Hispanic whites" - thus leaving Hispanics the option of calling themselves white.
On job applications(government) they have White (non Hispanic)
No one points out the contradiction in that - being "white" and eligible for "minority" benefits at the same time (or at least they aren't printed).
Why? Hispanics come in all colors, we are told. Spokesmen for American "blacks" claim that "blacks" come in all colors. How about "blacks" versus "non-black whites"?
Good points
Gays are being increasingly recognized as a physically invisible minority - as in "Mr. Smith is the first known or open gay to...." Despite the ODR, no one says, "Mr. Jones is the first known or acknowledged black to..."
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Wed 04 Jun 2008 16:11 Post subject:
A.D. wrote:
Good for Joy Behar! Too many "whites" let themselves be bullied about "race" and fear to give their own opinions.
Joy also recently said, during a discussion about Obama, something like, “In this country if you're black and something else, you're black. Why is that?” I like her openness and candidness as well.
A.D. wrote:
Of course nearly every mainstream newspaper that discusses the difference between "Hispanics" and "whites" uses the term "non-Hispanic whites" - thus leaving Hispanics the option of calling themselves white.
No one points out the contradiction in that - being "white" and eligible for "minority" benefits at the same time (or at least they aren't printed). Why? Hispanics come in all colors, we are told. Spokesmen for American "blacks" claim that "blacks" come in all colors. How about "blacks" versus "non-black whites"?
Excellent points. I wonder if Hispanics as a whole (as opposed to various groups) will one day universally be seen as plain old white (instead of “Hispanic white”) in this country, just as Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, etc. are now. Then again, I never heard of a time when there were “Italians” and “non-Italian Whites” (suggesting an intermediate category, as Hispanics seem to be in the minds of some). They merely changed from non-white to white.
And, as I've often wondered, how are Spaniards perceived? In my experience, sometimes they are considered merely Europeans (which of course they are), and other times they are lumped together with Latin Americans under a Hispanic umbrella (they are of course not Latin Americans, but are Hispanic in the older sense of the word: “originating from Spain”). My neighbor, who is a Spaniard from Galicia, does not like the term “Hispanic” to be applied to him. When asked why, he says that since the term now means so many things, it really means nothing, and when people hear the word “Hispanic,” they don't think of white European Spaniards, which is what he identifies as. When asked about the different current meanings of “Hispanic,” he says it sometimes means “Spanish speaking”; other times it means “coming from Latin America”; and still other times it means “being of Latin American origin and having an non-white appearance.” Juan is a nice guy, but don't get him started on this subject, as he is passionate about it!
Ty wrote:
She just opened another bag of worms. Italian-Americans Puerto Ricans. Ethnic whites. People from both groups can be mistaken for each other.
I friend of mine J Marzano said to me in a conversation about identity
"Italians know we have black ancestry"
"I identify as Italian, not white"
"I'm white in that I'm caucasian"
to her white in the 1st example meant W.A.S.P. those are the real white people...as she put it.
Another friend of mine J.Martinelli (Sicilian) married to a Dominican woman...has always dated black hispanic and italian women
"I'm Sicilian-American, not white
but I am caucasian"
I have a pretty good list of examples that show that Italian-Americans may have a very different or complex view of race themselves.
Interesting perspectives. I suppose they are defining “Caucasian” as “European” and “white” as “Anglo-American” or “of Northern European extraction.”
Last edited by William on Thu 05 Jun 2008 01:35; edited 1 time in total
I friend of mine J Marzano said to me in a conversation about identity
"Italians know we have black ancestry"
"I identify as Italian, not white"
"I'm white in that I'm caucasian"
to her white in the 1st example meant W.A.S.P. those are the real white people...as she put it.
Another friend of mine J.Martinelli (Sicilian) married to a Dominican woman...has always dated black hispanic and italian women
"I'm Sicilian-American, not white
but I am caucasian"
I have a pretty good list of examples that show that Italian-Americans may have a very different or complex view of race themselves.[/color]
The only Italian-Americans I get that from are the "too cool to be white" types who have mostly non-white friends.
Many Italian-Americans I grew up were too cool for many bland white folks. Most of the Italian-Americans I knew acted like the people on the "Sopranos". However, tell them they weren't racially white and they might bitch slap you.
in my little experience of white Americans, I have never seen or heard them refer to those from non-European background as white.
If you are referring to Asians, I recommend James W. Loewen, The Mississippi Chinese: Between Black and White (Cambridge MA: Harvard University, 1971) or either of the two sources to which I already provided links: Jonathan W. Warren and France Winddance Twine, “White Americans, the New Minority?,” Journal of Black Studies 28, no. 2 (1997): 200-218; or The "Race" Notion's Role in Ethnic Assimilation. Please. The goal here is to inform and to become informed. We cannot do that unless people are wiling to read.
If you are referring to Jews, I recommend either Karen Brodkin, How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says About Race in America (New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University, 1998) or the shorter Karen Brodkin Sacks, “How Did Jews Become White Folks?,” in Race, ed. Steven Gregory and Roger Sanjek (New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University, 1994), 78-102.
If you are referring to Puerto Ricans, Puerto Ricans are of Spanish language and culture. Spain is in Europe.
Fsweet, thank you for the links. I did read both of them and I thought I wait a while before I respond. I think it is fair to say there is more than one usage of the term white. I think the common usage of the term white is for people who are of European descent. However, in the context of this thread the usage of white appears to refer to honorary white status. I think a distinction should be made between the common usage of white and honorary whites. I still stand by my original statement that in my little experience of white Americans they do not appear to accept people of Non-European descent as white. This is why the ODR is still alive. In addition, if non-whites were really perceived as white they would cease to be Asian etc. However, I can accept that many groups have had honorary white status bestowed on them.
I think it is hard to say whether Puerto Ricans are perceived as white when viewed as a collective group. I do not think the fact Spain is in Europe factors whether Puerto Ricans are perceived as white because Puerto Rica is not in Spain. However, as you say Puerto Ricans are of Spanish language and culture, which is associated with white people. I do not think speaking Spanish is consider mainstream in America. Moreover, Puerto Ricans are often referred to as Hispanics; I think this set them apart from White Americans who are just called White. I think there a good possibility Puerto Ricans are not perceived as any race category except for being Puerto Ricans. It does appear to me Puerto Ricans are able to opt out of the race system. Fsweet, I can understand if you disagree with my point of view. I think maybe we might have to agree to disagree. I was not born in America and I have never lived there so I have a different perspective.
I do not think the fact Spain is in Europe factors whether Puerto Ricans are perceived as white because Puerto Rica is not in Spain.
Is it then safe to assume that you consider neither Canadians nor USAmericans to be White because neither Canada nor the U.S. are in Europe either? Interesting concept--Only residents of mainland Europe are seen as White, not their colonies. So the present-day Pennsylvania Dutch (who were seen as non-White in 1760) are merely "honorary Whites" today. Can they ever become "true Whites"? What about New Zealanders and Australians?
I am just trying to understand your position as to the difference between a "true White" and an "honorary White."
I do not think the fact Spain is in Europe factors whether Puerto Ricans are perceived as white because Puerto Rica is not in Spain.
Is it then safe to assume that you consider neither Canadians nor USAmericans to be White because neither Canada nor the U.S. are in Europe either? Interesting concept--Only residents of mainland Europe are seen as White, not their colonies. So the present-day Pennsylvania Dutch (who were seen as non-White in 1760) are merely "honorary Whites" today. Can they ever become "true Whites"? What about New Zealanders and Australians?
I am just trying to understand your position as to the difference between a "true White" and an "honorary White."
No, Fwsweet, my own personal view of the term white is quite liberal. I am merely stating that the common usage of white refers to those of Europeans descent. Therefore, I am saying, it is likely Americans, Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders who are predominantly of
European descent are likely to be referred to as White. Similarly, those who are predominantly of African descent who reside in the same countries are most likely to be referred to as Black.
Fwsweet let me use your example in a different way. Fwsweet, you saying Puerto Ricans will be perceived as white because they speak Spanish and have a Spanish culture is like saying Jamaica was English colony and they speak English therefore they will be perceived white. Now if you had said Puerto Ricans are predominantly of European/ Spanish descent therefore they will be perceived as white, I think that would have made more sense.
I hope that is much clearer.
It is likely Americans, Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders who are predominantly of European descent are likely to be referred to as White. Similarly, those who are predominantly of African descent who reside in the same countries are most likely to be referred to as Black.
People do not actually take autosomal DNA measurements before deciding whether someone is White in their eyes. So, when you say "predominantly of European descent," you are are using an appearance-based criterion. You are saying that to be "truly White" in the eyes of the U.S. public (rather than merely "honorary White") a person must "look White." There are three problems with this forumulation, other than its obvious circularity (only "true whites" look white because only those who look white are "truly white").
The first problem is that it is subjective in your own eyes, which might not be the most reliable indicator of "European descent." One-third of USAmericans who check off White on the census have detectable sub-Saharan admixture. Indeed, the U.S. admixture scatter diagram is different from diagrams of people in Europe in the former's clearly visible scattering of sub-Saharan markers, which are absent in most of Europe.
The second problem is that you are trying subjectively to estimate the subjectivity of the USAmerican public--a subjective assessment of others' subjectivity. With this approach, I am not sure how one could even define the phenomenon to be observed, much less measure it.
The third problem is that public expression of such subjectivity varies dramatically over time and space. Italian-American kids had to attend segregated Black schools in much of the Jim-Crow south, precislely because Italians did not "look White." And first-person testimony of contemporaries in the mid-1700s was that German-Americans would never be able to pass as White due to their swarthy looks. You cannot argue that their perceptions were "in error" because that is exactly what we are we are talking about: subjective perception.
All in all, although we are trying to assess the subjective feelings of the U.S. public, we should do so by objective, not subjective, means. It is true that we want to estimate the intuitive gut-feel of the U.S. population, but to do so by using our own intuitive gut-feel is unwise and unpersuasive. We need an objective, replicable measure of the intuitive gut-feel perception of USAmericans. To my knowledge, the only objective, replicable measure that has ever been proposed is acceptance as marriage partners.
Using this yardstick--acceptance as marriage partners--reveals an interesting point. There is a gradual continuum, not a dichotomy. I would not call the steps "nonwhite," "honorary White," and "truly White," but there are definite steps. When an immigrant group first arrives, less than 5 percent of USAmericans see them as acceptable marriage partners. But over time the level of acceptance climbs to 10 percent, 20 percent, and so forth. When intermarriage reaches the 40-50 percent characteristic of German-Americans, Italian-Americans, and Irish-Americans, objectivity demands that you count this as "being seen as White." Again, I am proposing objective measurement of perception and am disdaining subjective gut-feel intuition.
With this in mind, I propose to define the phrase, "Seen as White by USAmericans," as "intermarrying with self-identified Whites at a rate greater than 15 percent." I suggest that anyone who wants to continue this thread should either accept my definition, or propose a different but equally objective definition.
Beauty wrote:
Fwsweet, you saying Puerto Ricans will be perceived as white because they speak Spanish and have a Spanish culture is like saying Jamaica was English colony and they speak English therefore they will be perceived white.
I said nothing of the sort. Your understanding of my position is mistaken on three counts.
First, I affirmed nothing. I simply questioned why you perceived the inhabitants of former British colonies as being "of European descent" but the inhabitants of former Spanish or Portuguese colonies as being of "non-European descent." You explained that your perception was not based on which nation did the colonizing, but on whether you think that the inhabitants "look White" to USAmericans.
Second, I also said nothing about whether Puerto Ricans "will be" perceived as White. The thrust of this thread is whether they are perceived as White, right now, this very moment. No "will be" about it.
Finally, I have not ventured to opine on "why" such acceptance as White by USAmericans comes about. But if were to venture a guess on what factors accellerate or delay such acceptance, I would definitely NOT propose that acceptance as White happens "because they speak Spanish and have a Spanish culture." If anything, I suspect just the opposite.
It is likely Americans, Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders who are predominantly of European descent are likely to be referred to as White. Similarly, those who are predominantly of African descent who reside in the same countries are most likely to be referred to as Black.
People do not actually take autosomal DNA measurements before deciding whether someone is White in their eyes. So, when you say "predominantly of European descent," you are are using an appearance-based criterion. You are saying that to be "truly White" in the eyes of the U.S. public (rather than merely "honorary White") a person must "look White." There are three problems with this forumulation, other than its obvious circularity (only "true whites" look white because only those who look white are "truly white").
The first problem is that it is subjective in your own eyes, which might not be the most reliable indicator of "European descent." One-third of USAmericans who check off White on the census have detectable sub-Saharan admixture. Indeed, the U.S. admixture scatter diagram is different from diagrams of people in Europe in the former's clearly visible scattering of sub-Saharan markers, which are absent in most of Europe.
The second problem is that you are trying subjectively to estimate the subjectivity of the USAmerican public--a subjective assessment of others' subjectivity. With this approach, I am not sure how one could even define the phenomenon to be observed, much less measure it.
The third problem is that public expression of such subjectivity varies dramatically over time and space. Italian-American kids had to attend segregated Black schools in much of the Jim-Crow south, precislely because Italians did not "look White." And first-person testimony of contemporaries in the mid-1700s was that German-Americans would never be able to pass as White due to their swarthy looks. You cannot argue that their perceptions were "in error" because that is exactly what we are we are talking about: subjective perception.
All in all, although we are trying to assess the subjective feelings of the U.S. public, we should do so by objective, not subjective, means. It is true that we want to estimate the intuitive gut-feel of the U.S. population, but to do so by using our own intuitive gut-feel is unwise and unpersuasive. We need an objective, replicable measure of the intuitive gut-feel perception of USAmericans. To my knowledge, the only objective, replicable measure that has ever been proposed is acceptance as marriage partners.
Using this yardstick--acceptance as marriage partners--reveals an interesting point. There is a gradual continuum, not a dichotomy. I would not call the steps "nonwhite," "honorary White," and "truly White," but there are definite steps. When an immigrant group first arrives, less than 5 percent of USAmericans see them as acceptable marriage partners. But over time the level of acceptance climbs to 10 percent, 20 percent, and so forth. When intermarriage reaches the 40-50 percent characteristic of German-Americans, Italian-Americans, and Irish-Americans, objectivity demands that you count this as "being seen as White." Again, I am proposing objective measurement of perception and am disdaining subjective gut-feel intuition.
With this in mind, I propose to define the phrase, "Seen as White by USAmericans," as "intermarrying with self-identified Whites at a rate greater than 15 percent." Anyone who wants to continue this thread should either accept my definition or propose an equally objective definition.
Beauty wrote:
Fwsweet, you saying Puerto Ricans will be perceived as white because they speak Spanish and have a Spanish culture is like saying Jamaica was English colony and they speak English therefore they will be perceived white.
I said nothing of the sort. Your understanding of my position is mistaken on three counts.
First, I affirmed nothing. I simply questioned why you perceived the inhabitants of former British colonies as being "of European descent" but the inhabitants of former Spanish or Portuguese colonies as being of "non-European descent." You explained that your perception was not based on which nation did the colonizing, but on whether you think that the inhabitants "look White" to USAmericans.
Second, I also said nothing about whether Puerto Ricans "will be" perceived as White. The thrust of this thread is whether they are perceived as White, right now, this very moment. No "will be" about it.
Finally, I have not ventured to opine on "why" such acceptance as White by USAmericans comes about. But if were to venture a guess on what factors accellerate or delay such acceptance, I would definitely NOT propose that acceptance as White happens "because they speak Spanish and have a Spanish culture." If anything, I suspect just the opposite.
Fwseet, I think you are puting your own spin on my words. Who mentioned DNA testing or appearances? Not me. I used the word predominately for a reason. I am aware many white people have African ancestry. Simarily, many people of African have European ancestry. As I said, I have my own personal view of what is white and I have never stated my own views on the subject. I am talking about the common usage of white. Now if you want to dispute my understanding on the common usage of white, that is fine but please refrain from putting your own subjective spin on my words.
Edited to add: When I said common usage of the term white I am not only refering to America.
Last edited by Beauty on Sun 08 Jun 2008 15:42; edited 1 time in total
Fsweet, I have looked on the US census Bureu website. According to the website these are the racial definitions which are used in America.
Yes, those are the definitions used by OMB in 2000. Two things you should keep in mind, however, about the U.S. federal census definitions. First, the definitions have changed with every single census, without exception, since 1850. Second, no other U.S. federal agency uses the census definitions. To the EEOC, for example, "Hispanics" are a distinct "race."
Posted: Sun 08 Jun 2008 21:58 Post subject: RESPONSE TO FRANK'S DEFINITION OF WHITENESS
Quote:
Finally, and this the clincher in my view, there is only objective replicable definition of acceptance as "White" that has ever been presented, either in this forum or in the general literature. It is the scholarly consensus definition: "Are members of the group accepted as suitable marriage partners by Whites?" If a group is not seen as suitable marriage partners by Whites, then it is pointless to argue that they are "really White" in some subjective nonreplicable sense. And if they freely intermarry with Whites, then it is pointless to argue that that they are not. As of the 2000 census, about 45 percent of Puerto Ricans were married to Anglo Whites (about the same fraction as Italian-Americans). In fact, 15 percent of all "Hispanics" (including Mexican-Americans) married Anglo Whites (about the same as Irish-Americans in the 1930s).
1. I certainly see why endogamy/exogamy is considered the main test of acceptability as a member of an ethnic group. But I have a few reservations about this being the sole measure.
2. Here are my concerns:
- There may be significant ethnocentric or racist prejudice against the
officially non-white group, despite high intermarriage with Whites.
I think that according to research Asians still suffer from a good
degree of discrimination, and so do Puerto Ricans, do they not?
- There may be significant auto-segregation between Whites and the
officialy non-white group. For instance, I think the dissimilarity index
for puerto-ricans is quite high compared to say, "irish americans". And
for Asians I believe its smaller but still statistically significant.
-Therefore from a functional point of view, a person's daily interactions
with Whites can be significantly different from those experienced by
people who are seen as White, despite high intermariage rates. Or can
they? Perhaps it depends on how much discrimination we mean?
3. How do mulattos do on the intermarriage measure? From what I can see they intermarry with socially recognized Whites most of the time. Does this imply that we are in fact Whites in the social sense? I sure hope so. But I find it doubtfull.
I have a few reservations about this being the sole measure.
So do I. In fact, when I first became interested in the history of the U.S. color line (about 20 years ago), I was determined to find an objective yardstick of social acceptance other than intermarriage. When I saw that Gunar Myrdal had concluded ...
Myrdal wrote:
The ban on intermarriage has the highest place in the white man’s rank order of social segregation and discrimination. Sexual segregation is the most pervasive form of segregation, and the concern about “race purity” is, in a sense, basic. No other way of crossing the color line is so attended by the emotion commonly associated with violating a social taboo as intermarriage and extra-marital relations between a Negro man and a white woman. No excuse for other forms of social segregation and discrimination is so potent as the one that sociable relations on an equal basis between members of the two races may possibly lead to intermarriage. -- Gunnar Myrdal, Richard Mauritz Edvard Sterner, and Arnold Marshall Rose, An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (New York, 1972), 606.
... and when I saw that Dinnerstein had concluded ...
Dinnerstein wrote:
The importance of [intermarriage] cannot be overstated. The family is the primary social unit in society, and as families mix, so do other institutions. In other words, intermarriage is the ultimate form of ethnic assimilation. -- Leonard Dinnerstein and David M. Reimers, Ethnic Americans: A History of Immigration, 4th ed. (New York, 1999), 179.
... and when I saw that Gordon had concluded ...
Gordon wrote:
Recent studies have pointed to the role of intimate equal-status contact between members of majority and minority groups in reducing prejudice. Structural separation, by definition, denotes a situation in which primary group contacts between members of various ethnic groups are held to a minimum, even though secondary contacts on the job, on the civic scene, and in other areas of impersonal contact may abound. In view of the tendency of human beings to categorize in their psychic perceptions and reactions and to form in-groups and, frequently, out-groups on the basis of familiar experiences and contacts, it may plausibly be argued that just as intimate primary group relations tend to reduce prejudice, a lack of such contacts tends to produce hostile ethnic attitudes. -- Milton M. Gordon, Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins (New York, 1964), 235-36.
... I resolved with even more determination to find a different measure than the one reached by those who had preceded me in this field of study. I tried using reported incidents of aggression. I tried tabulating oppressive legislation. I tried cross-color-line crime statistics. But every other measure was subject to subjective interpretation, hence non-replicable. Reluctantly, I had to reach the same conclusion as everyone before me—intermarriage is the only replicable (objective) measure of social acceptance that anyone has yet found.
Regarding prejudice and dissimilarity index, the point is that these factors vanish after three generations of intermarriage for the simple reason that descendants are indistinguishable physically or culturally (except by choice) from the mainstream. You have only to read the 1861 American Encyclopedia's description of the ape-like features of the Irish showing them to be sub-human, or its description of the hideous features of Jews, or Andrews's account of the assimilation of the Afro-Argentines of the 19th century, to realize that genetic assimilation erases all physical differences. Prejudice cannot get traction when nothing distinguishes its target.
Regarding how mulattos fare, no one knows. Over ten years ago, the NAACP and its allies crushed all hope of allowing a "multiracial" box on the census, deliberately preventing any data collection on this. Without data collection, it is anyone's guess. The legalization of "check more than one box" (which, by the way, many Americans did in earlier censuses even though it was explicitly forbidden by federal regulations) was seen as a possible source of data, but this has not panned out. The number of non-Hispanics who check off "Black" and something else is miniscule--too small a sample to be meaningful. Since a "multiracial" box is not in the cards, anthropologists today are arguing for abolition of the "race" question and its replacement with an "ethnicity" question, where people can fill in whatever they want.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Mon 09 Jun 2008 14:25 Post subject:
Frank wrote:
You have only to read the 1861 American Encyclopedia's description of the ape-like features of the Irish showing them to be sub-human, or its description of the hideous features of Jews [. . .]
I don't mean to digress here, but the abject prejudice shown by early encyclopediae never ceases to amaze me. The infamous 1911 Britannica describes the Portuguese as an “inferior race” of “whites” due to slave admixture. It mentions that Sicilians are “afflicted” with “negroid contamination.” It discusses how southern Italians are composed since Roman times of “various inferior racial types.” I also recall East Indians being described as “more like monkeys than men” in another early encyclopedia. Unbelievable, for publications that are supposed to be objective. I suppose the general thinking of any given time cannot help but influence academia to a degree.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
