Barack Obama's candidacy spells the end of the one-drop rule and the beginning of a painful but necessary exploration of the real meaning of race in America.
By Gary Kamiya
Jun. 10, 2008 | Just by being who he is, Barack Obama has made history twice. He is the first black major party nominee for president, but he is also the first mixed-race nominee. Many of the largely unspoken questions that have hovered over his candidacy concern this double identity. In the early stages of his candidacy, there was much discussion about whether Obama was "black enough" to earn the allegiance of African-Americans. The overwhelming support he has drawn from blacks has put one side of that question to rest. But the other side remains unanswered: Is he "too black" to attract working-class whites? In critical states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton clobbered him with this important demographic. Analysts differ as to the role racism played here. But if Obama is rejected by large numbers of less-educated, lower-income whites, he could lose to McCain in the general election.
I tend to agree with those, like the New York Times' Paul Krugman,who believe that race is no longer the winning political card it has been for the GOP since Nixon's "Southern strategy" and Reagan's racially coded attacks on "government do-gooders." There are clearly significant numbers of voters for whom Obama's race will tip the scales against him, but probably not enough to overcome McCain's huge handicaps this year.
It is tempting to regard Obama's success as clear evidence that American racism has faded away. Yet the truth is more complicated. Because Obama's own identity is so unusual, it's difficult to know exactly what his triumph tells us about America's racial attitudes. Of course it indicates that crude racism has declined enormously (although I'm honestly not sure whether Obama could have been nominated if both his parents were black). But Obama is not an ordinary black man. And what his success really reveals is something more complex and equivocal: that whites are comfortable with black people, but much more uneasy about certain aspects of black culture, those associated with the so-called black underclass. Being black is OK; acting black, in certain ways, isn't.
In fact, this is an attitude shared by many blacks. A 2007 Pew Poll showed that 37 percent of blacks no longer regard black people as constituting a single race, and that 70 percent of college-educated blacks said that the "values gap" between middle-class and poor blacks had widened over the past 10 years. These remarkable findings clearly reflect a growing rejection by middle-class blacks of the crime and other pathologies so often associated, rightly or wrongly, with the black underclass.
The distinction between race and culture is uncomfortable, because it's so complicated. Talking about "black cultural pathologies" sounds racist -- and it can be. Black culture is not monolithic. But out of fear, uncertainty and ignorance, whites and blacks often relate to each other as if it is -- which is precisely why Obama's success could translate into genuine racial progress. The first step toward real knowledge across racial lines is to put down the cultural masks, the perceived notions of what it means to be black or white. Obama's candidacy is seen as a feel-good Kumbaya fest that makes us all feel better, but my real hope is that it will throw us all, black, white and other, into the racial soup, forcing us to take a much deeper look at each other.
Mixed-race people, particularly those of black and white ancestry, have long been forced to navigate this complicated terrain. Their experiences show just how inadequate our traditional ways of talking about race are. As their numbers grow and their perspectives become more familiar, they will inevitably erode the cornerstone of America's racial pathologies, the one-drop rule -- the idea, deeply rooted in white racism, that any amount of black blood defines you as black. And no one will do more to undercut that racist rule than Obama.
At first glance, Obama's own racial self-definition seems to affirm this legacy of racial essentialism, not deny it. Genetically, Obama is just as white as he is black, but he defines himself as a black man of mixed race, not as someone of mixed race who is neither black nor white. Like many -- probably most --Americans of mixed black and white ancestry, he doesn't identify himself as white at all.
Obama's critics on the left and right have slammed him for not fully embracing a post-racial, mixed-race identity. They attack what they see as his racial balancing act, emphasizing his blackness on Monday and his whiteness on Tuesday. But such criticisms overlook the unique stigma attached to being black in America, and its accompanying impact on how one defines oneself. The fact is, half-black people are still usually seen as black. It's much easier to reject all racial labels when you're half Asian and half white, like me, than it is when you're black and half white.
Obama has his own set of reasons for identifying as black, some of which he identifies in his superb autobiography, "Dreams From My Father." The often painful challenges he faced in forging his identity as the son of a Kenyan father and white American mother may seem exotic and unique, but in fact they are shared by many biracial Americans. Lise Funderburg's fascinating 1994 book "Black, White, Other: Biracial Americans Talk About Race and Identity," a collection of interviews with 46 biracial Americans, reveals that mixed-race Americans, who make up at least 3 percent of the population but probably much more, define themselves in a myriad of ways. Who your parents are, your relationship with them, how black or white you look, where you grew up, who you grew up with, your personality, all play a role.
Funderburg's book shows just how broad a spectrum of identity choices mixed-race people face. Toward the post-racial end are those who define themselves as mixed and reject the labels "black" or "white" or "Asian" (or insist that both must apply simultaneously). At the opposite, more traditional end are those like Obama who embrace their black identity. I can't deny that as a mixed-race person who fits into the first category, I'd love to see a politician who refuses traditional racial labels. But that day is coming. And I don't presume to judge Obama's, or anyone else's, choices.
For race is messy. There isn't a "normal" or "right" way to be biracial, any more than there is a "normal" way to be white or black -- or Asian or Latino or Native American or any of the other labels that we more or less arbitrarily use to carve humanity up into separate groups.
One of the intriguing questions raised by Obama's meteoric political rise is whether he could have repeated it if he had run not as a black man but as someone of mixed race. It's impossible to answer, but there are reasons to think he wouldn't have succeeded. The default position in America is for someone of mixed black and white ancestry to self-identify as black: There's still a faint stigma of supposed racial self-hatred or "selling out" attached to those who refuse to do so, especially if they're politicians. Tiger Woods can get away with being "Cablinasian" because he's just a superstar golfer; he doesn't have to walk through the racial minefield as carefully as Obama does.
Of course, some of this has to do with the suspicious or hostile attitudes some blacks have toward part-black people who identify as biracial and not as black. In Funderburg's book, several of the subjects recount that they were attacked when they identified themselves as biracial: "What? Are you too good to identify with blacks?" But it also has to do with white attitudes. A mixed-race politician of black and white ancestry who did not identify as black would be attractive to many white voters but would confuse others and earn the enmity of still others (ironically, both on the far, racially essentialist left and the openly racist right) who would see him as "passing," as self-hating or just as weird.
But such attitudes are as doomed as the one-drop rule. Obama is the thin end of the post-racial wedge, the advance scout of an unclassifiable army of nontragic mulattos that is changing the way we think about race.
The fact that Obama is both black and biracial, paradoxical and confusing as it is, has already advanced America's ideas about race enormously. It's true that Obama is an anomaly, whom few can completely identify with -- there aren't that many children of black Kenyan fathers and white Kansas mothers who grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, edited the Harvard Law Review and became the Democratic presidential nominee after just one term in the U.S. Senate. But he's an inclusive anomaly, an anomaly that everyone, black, white and other, can identify with enough to use as a conduit to talk to people they normally wouldn't.
This ability to cross borders is shared by many people of mixed race. Several of the people interviewed in Funderburg's book make the point that their experiences allow them to understand people of different races. "Sometimes I wish I was one or the other, but being biracial has made me a stronger person and has given me my own special gold card because I understand black culture and white culture," Danielle Williams told Funderburg.
The fact that Obama is both black and white, combined with his powerful synthesizing temperament, gives him a moral and intellectual perspective on race matters that few national leaders can match. In his famous speech in Philadelphia, he already went beyond standard political bromides about race. As president, he will be able to use his bully pulpit to explore the intertwined issues of race, culture and class far more deeply than any American president ever has. If he does it right, it'll make us all uncomfortable -- but ultimately bring us more together.
The author ignores the African ancestry in Arabs and Hispanics - again!
He addressed Obama's racial background and made a small comment on his own ancestry. Why would the African ancestry in Arabs and Hispanics be relevant?
Posted: Wed 11 Jun 2008 15:23 Post subject: accusing anonymouse of rule violation
Code:
He addressed Obama's racial background and made a small comment on his own ancestry. Why would the African ancestry in Arabs and Hispanics be relevant?
_________________
Everytime I read your posts, your insecurities flash before my eyes.
Quote:
2.2 Do not engage in ad hominem. If you disagree with someone, focus your comments on the content of their message, not their person. Do not attribute motives. Do not ridicule them. Do not engage in any form of ad hominem.
Barack Obama's candidacy spells the end of the one-drop rule and the beginning of a painful but necessary exploration of the real meaning of race in America.
By Gary Kamiya
Jun. 10, 2008 |
Mixed-race people, particularly those of black and white ancestry, have long been forced to navigate this complicated terrain. Their experiences show just how inadequate our traditional ways of talking about race are. As their numbers grow and their perspectives become more familiar, they will inevitably erode the cornerstone of America's racial pathologies, the one-drop rule -- the idea, deeply rooted in white racism, that any amount of black blood defines you as black. And no one will do more to undercut that racist rule than Obama.
The fact is, half-black people are still usually seen as black. It's much easier to reject all racial labels when you're half Asian and half white, like me, than it is when you're black and half white.
One of the intriguing questions raised by Obama's meteoric political rise is whether he could have repeated it if he had run not as a black man but as someone of mixed race. It's impossible to answer, but there are reasons to think he wouldn't have succeeded. The default position in America is for someone of mixed black and white ancestry to self-identify as black: There's still a faint stigma of supposed racial self-hatred or "selling out" attached to those who refuse to do so, especially if they're politicians. Tiger Woods can get away with being "Cablinasian" because he's just a superstar golfer; he doesn't have to walk through the racial minefield as carefully as Obama does.
Of course, some of this has to do with the suspicious or hostile attitudes some blacks have toward part-black people who identify as biracial and not as black. In Funderburg's book, several of the subjects recount that they were attacked when they identified themselves as biracial: "What? Are you too good to identify with blacks?" But it also has to do with white attitudes. A mixed-race politician of black and white ancestry who did not identify as black would be attractive to many white voters but would confuse others and earn the enmity of still others (ironically, both on the far, racially essentialist left and the openly racist right) who would see him as "passing," as self-hating or just as weird.
The fact that Obama is both black and white, combined with his powerful synthesizing temperament, gives him a moral and intellectual perspective on race matters that few national leaders can match. In his famous speech in Philadelphia, he already went beyond standard political bromides about race. As president, he will be able to use his bully pulpit to explore the intertwined issues of race, culture and class far more deeply than any American president ever has. If he does it right, it'll make us all uncomfortable -- but ultimately bring us more together.
The author ignores the African ancestry in Arabs and Hispanics - again!
I think the reality is that an Arab would not be running for Presidency. Maybe in another 30 years. Remember, one of the reasons people are saying they won't vote for Obama is because they think he is Muslim. I really don't think most Americans would vote for an Arab/Muslim or Arab of any religious background/or lack of. So bringing that up in this article would be irrelevant.
I think the Euro-Asian author did a good job, because he/she was dealing with something specific. Delving into Hispanics and Arabs would have been a very long article. A seperate article about Arabs specifically and Hispanics specifically would be interesting. One done on Hispanics running for office/President especially with the Mexican issue and so many people thinking of all Hispanics under one label, would be really revealing.
This one article is read good.
Gary Kamiya is the executive editor and one of the founders of Salon.com, which has received more awards than any other online cultural and political magazine. Previously, he worked as an editor and cultural critic for the San Francisco Examiner. His writing has appeared in The New York Times Book Review, ArtForum, and Sports Illustrated, among other publications. He serves on Zoetrope's editorial board.
Last edited by gemini072 on Wed 11 Jun 2008 15:46; edited 3 times in total
Posted: Wed 11 Jun 2008 15:34 Post subject: Re: accusing anonymouse of rule violation
Powell wrote:
Code:
He addressed Obama's racial background and made a small comment on his own ancestry. Why would the African ancestry in Arabs and Hispanics be relevant?
_________________
Everytime I read your posts, your insecurities flash before my eyes.
Quote:
2.2 Do not engage in ad hominem. If you disagree with someone, focus your comments on the content of their message, not their person. Do not attribute motives. Do not ridicule them. Do not engage in any form of ad hominem.
Anonymouse, I didn't catch/notice that, real subtle. AD is correct in you are violating a rule.
Posted: Wed 11 Jun 2008 16:22 Post subject: Re: accusing anonymouse of rule violation
Powell wrote:
Code:
He addressed Obama's racial background and made a small comment on his own ancestry. Why would the African ancestry in Arabs and Hispanics be relevant?
_________________
Everytime I read your posts, your insecurities flash before my eyes.
Quote:
2.2 Do not engage in ad hominem. If you disagree with someone, focus your comments on the content of their message, not their person. Do not attribute motives. Do not ridicule them. Do not engage in any form of ad hominem.
gemini072 wrote:
Anonymouse, I didn't catch/notice that, real subtle. AD is correct in you are violating a rule.
If you are referring to the line about insecurities, if you look closely you will notice that that particular line is my signature and has been there for a few weeks now. But she knew that because a person's signature does not appear when one hits the button
Posted: Wed 11 Jun 2008 16:51 Post subject: Arabs and Hispanics
anonymouse wrote:
He addressed Obama's racial background and made a small comment on his own ancestry. Why would the African ancestry in Arabs and Hispanics be relevant?
We've discussed the issue countless times in this forum, but since the ODR is based on the presumption that "whites" fear the biological fact of black ancestry in predominately non-black people, the fact that this SSA ancestry in Hispanics and Arabs is politely ignored contradicts the idea that "whites" are the main supporters of the ODR (as opposed to the black-identified). It is intellectually dishonest for an author to claim to discuss the historical and social reality of the ODR while following a tacit rule that the "black blood" in Hispanics and Arabs is not to be mentioned. It's ignoring evidence.
Posted: Wed 11 Jun 2008 17:13 Post subject: Re: accusing anonymouse of rule violation
Powell wrote:
Code:
He addressed Obama's racial background and made a small comment on his own ancestry. Why would the African ancestry in Arabs and Hispanics be relevant?
_________________
Everytime I read your posts, your insecurities flash before my eyes.
If it was a part of his post 2.2 would be in violation, but it is a part of his signature/quote.
Quote:
2.2 Do not engage in ad hominem. If you disagree with someone, focus your comments on the content of their message, not their person. Do not attribute motives. Do not ridicule them. Do not engage in any form of ad hominem.
I think the reality is that an Arab would not be running for Presidency. Maybe in another 30 years. Remember, one of the reasons people are saying they won't vote for Obama is because they think he is Muslim. I really don't think most Americans would vote for an Arab/Muslim or Arab of any religious background/or lack of. So bringing that up in this article would be irrelevant.
Actually there are and have been many Arab-American politicians and prominent government advisors. George Mitchell, John Sununu (former Bush I cabinet member and former governor of New Hampshire), Spencer Abraham, Donna Shalala, and many other lesser-known political personalities are Arab American, including and Arab-American female mayor of a Southern city. I can't remember her name or the city but she is very Middle Eastern looking. Whether this means one will be elected president is another matter, but we have had an Arab-American perpetual presidential candidate who is very popular, Ralph Nader (who I believe speaks fluent Arabic), so it's a possibility for the future.
Today, because of the Americans' general ignorance of the rest of the world, and I'm including people who fancy themselves multiculturalists, we equate Arab with Muslim. Most Arab-Americans (as opposed to Arab immigrants) are Christian and some of the oldest Christian communities can be found in the Arab world. Most Muslims in the U.S. are not Arabs, but from other parts of the Muslim world.
BTW, I think many of the people who refuse to vote for Obama because they think he is a crypto-Muslim are generally evangelical Christians, and not all of those people are white. Additionally, I do not believe all evangelicals feel this way. I do believe, however, that the media place an inordinate amount of attention on these people as if there aren't people who have more reasonable reasons not to support Obama.
Quote:
I think the Euro-Asian author did a good job, because he/she was dealing with something specific. Delving into Hispanics and Arabs would have been a very long article. A seperate article about Arabs specifically and Hispanics specifically would be interesting. One done on Hispanics running for office/President especially with the Mexican issue and so many people thinking of all Hispanics under one label, would be really revealing.
The main reason why we don't hear about African ancestry in Arabs and Hispanics is because most Arabs here in the U.S are Levantine Arabs and most Hispanics are of Mexican origin. Two of these groups in general do not have any noticeable African ancestry. It isn't reflected in their cultures or how they look. If most Arabs in the U.S. were from Yemen and most Hispanics Puerto Rican or (even better) Dominican, then their African ancestry would be something for media types to discuss or notice.
I think the reality is that an Arab would not be running for Presidency. Maybe in another 30 years. Remember, one of the reasons people are saying they won't vote for Obama is because they think he is Muslim. I really don't think most Americans would vote for an Arab/Muslim or Arab of any religious background/or lack of. So bringing that up in this article would be irrelevant.
Actually there are and have been many Arab-American politicians and prominent government advisors. George Mitchell, John Sununu (former Bush I cabinet member and former governor of New Hampshire), Spencer Abraham, Donna Shalala, and many other lesser-known political personalities are Arab American, including and Arab-American female mayor of a Southern city. I can't remember her name or the city but she is very Middle Eastern looking. Whether this means one will be elected president is another matter, but we have had an Arab-American perpetual presidential candidate who is very popular, Ralph Nader (who I believe speaks fluent Arabic), so it's a possibility for the future.
Oh I never really looked into Ralph Nader's background. Maybe most of us don't know of it because he hasn't really been a strong Presidential candidate, as well as the fact that he is an Independant?
So I guess it's possible for an Arab or Muslim to get close. But with the way we are digging into the lives(private & public) of Pres. candidates, I doubt it would get by.
My comment was bases on the situation revolved around 911 and our current relationships with the Arab world. I was exaggerating with the 'possible 30 years' bit.
Today, because of the Americans' general ignorance of the rest of the world, and I'm including people who fancy themselves multiculturalists, we equate Arab with Muslim.
(Right which why I said most Americans wouldn't vote for an Arab, they would be to suspicious)
Most Arab-Americans (as opposed to Arab immigrants) are Christian and some of the oldest Christian communities can be found in the Arab world. Most Muslims in the U.S. are not Arabs, but from other parts of the Muslim world.
BTW, I think many of the people who refuse to vote for Obama because they think he is a crypto-Muslim are generally evangelical Christians, and not all of those people are white.
Yes I agree, that is where I first heard it from. But the influence is strong. I don't think the race of the evangelical Christians is a point. One thing I've been trying to focus in my post was that Americans =black white red yellow brown and mixed.
Additionally, I do not believe all evangelicals feel this way. I do believe, however, that the media place an inordinate amount of attention on these people as if there aren't people who have more reasonable reasons not to support Obama.
Quote:
I think the Euro-Asian author did a good job, because he/she was dealing with something specific. Delving into Hispanics and Arabs would have been a very long article. A seperate article about Arabs specifically and Hispanics specifically would be interesting. One done on Hispanics running for office/President especially with the Mexican issue and so many people thinking of all Hispanics under one label, would be really revealing.
The main reason why we don't hear about African ancestry in Arabs and Hispanics is because most Arabs here in the U.S are Levantine Arabs and most Hispanics are of Mexican origin. Two of these groups in general do not have any noticeable African ancestry. It isn't reflected in their cultures or how they look. If most Arabs in the U.S. were from Yemen and most Hispanics Puerto Rican or (even better) Dominican, then their African ancestry would be something for media types to discuss or notice.
My mention about Mexicans came mostly out of the issue of immigration right now. It doesn't take much to divert American attention from a possible presidential candidate (as they are doing with Obama). But the article author was dealing more or less with 'biracial' people not African genetic admixture dispersion.
Posted: Mon 16 Jun 2008 22:21 Post subject: Re: Arabs and Hispanics
Powell wrote:
anonymouse wrote:
He addressed Obama's racial background and made a small comment on his own ancestry. Why would the African ancestry in Arabs and Hispanics be relevant?
We've discussed the issue countless times in this forum, but since the ODR is based on the presumption that "whites" fear the biological fact of black ancestry in predominately non-black people, the fact that this SSA ancestry in Hispanics and Arabs is politely ignored contradicts the idea that "whites" are the main supporters of the ODR (as opposed to the black-identified). It is intellectually dishonest for an author to claim to discuss the historical and social reality of the ODR while following a tacit rule that the "black blood" in Hispanics and Arabs is not to be mentioned. It's ignoring evidence.
I have a theory, unproven and I will not represent as any thing more than that.
Maybe Latins and Arabs are contained within a category that makes them "nonwhite" or a different kind of white in the eyes of many USA whites is why they do not make such a fuss about color/racial categorizations. So in other words being Latin or Arab on its own places them in a different category from USA white. Note the lengths that people go to differentiate the term Hispanic (which can be of any race) from nonHispanic white. So "white Hispanics" are grouped with "nonwhite Hispanics", not with "nonHispanic whites". Now what other white group has this occurred (I am asking a question here)?
However in the case of AAs given their USA origins and the fact that they operate (to a large degree) within a US cultural/social milieu the prevention of such "contamination" by those "passing for white" miscegenating with US whites had to be more actively prevented. Note that it appears that ODR wasnt so much a fact of slavery as a fact of the post slavery era when many mulattos were acheiving upward mobility.
I look forward to reactions from others on this unproven theory of mine.
Posted: Mon 16 Jun 2008 23:54 Post subject: Re: Arabs and Hispanics
caribj wrote:
Maybe Latins and Arabs are contained within a category that makes them "nonwhite" or a different kind of white in the eyes of many USA whites is why they do not make such a fuss about color/racial categorizations. So in other words being Latin or Arab on its own places them in a different category from USA white. Note the lengths that people go to differentiate the term Hispanic (which can be of any race) from nonHispanic white. So "white Hispanics" are grouped with "nonwhite Hispanics", not with "nonHispanic whites". Now what other white group has this occurred (I am asking a question here)?
However in the case of AAs given their USA origins and the fact that they operate (to a large degree) within a US cultural/social milieu the prevention of such "contamination" by those "passing for white" miscegenating with US whites had to be more actively prevented. Note that it appears that ODR wasnt so much a fact of slavery as a fact of the post slavery era when many mulattos were acheiving upward mobility. I look forward to reactions from others on this unproven theory of mine.
Posted: Tue 17 Jun 2008 04:08 Post subject: Re: Arabs and Hispanics
caribj wrote:
Powell wrote:
anonymouse wrote:
He addressed Obama's racial background and made a small comment on his own ancestry. Why would the African ancestry in Arabs and Hispanics be relevant?
We've discussed the issue countless times in this forum, but since the ODR is based on the presumption that "whites" fear the biological fact of black ancestry in predominately non-black people, the fact that this SSA ancestry in Hispanics and Arabs is politely ignored contradicts the idea that "whites" are the main supporters of the ODR (as opposed to the black-identified). It is intellectually dishonest for an author to claim to discuss the historical and social reality of the ODR while following a tacit rule that the "black blood" in Hispanics and Arabs is not to be mentioned. It's ignoring evidence.
I have a theory, unproven and I will not represent as any thing more than that.
Maybe Latins and Arabs are contained within a category that makes them "nonwhite" or a different kind of white in the eyes of many USA whites is why they do not make such a fuss about color/racial categorizations. So in other words being Latin or Arab on its own places them in a different category from USA white. Note the lengths that people go to differentiate the term Hispanic (which can be of any race) from nonHispanic white. So "white Hispanics" are grouped with "nonwhite Hispanics", not with "nonHispanic whites". Now what other white group has this occurred (I am asking a question here)?
However in the case of AAs given their USA origins and the fact that they operate (to a large degree) within a US cultural/social milieu the prevention of such "contamination" by those "passing for white" miscegenating with US whites had to be more actively prevented. Note that it appears that ODR wasnt so much a fact of slavery as a fact of the post slavery era when many mulattos were acheiving upward mobility.
I look forward to reactions from others on this unproven theory of mine.
I disagree on the basis of personal experience. I know of caucasian latin americans living in the us who were treated as "special mexicans" etc., by Anglo-American Whites. These people made it a point to explain that the latinos in question were in fact "racial equals" and special. I think this attitude is much more widespread, but I have no real evidence.
Hypotheses:
1. Hypothesis 0: Caucasian latinos are seen as functionally equivalent to US Anglo-American Whites, by White Americans.
2. Hypothesis 1: Caucasian latinos are seen as a) functionally inequivalent to US Anglo-American Whites, and b) identical to non-caucasian latinos, by White Americans.
**by functional I mean that there is no significant difference in the way they are treated by either of the following two measures: A) intermarriage, B) social distance.
We can test the hypothesis by obtaining data on the social distance between White Americans and hispanics as it pertains to skin-color of hispanics.
We can also test the hypothesis by obtaining data on whether or not there is a statistical correlation between skin-color and marriages between White Americans and Hispanics.
Confounding variables would have to be controlled for:
- Social class
- Education
- Religion
- Nativity (immigrant vs US born)
- National Origin
There are significant differences between ethnic groups brought under the "Latino/Hispanic" umbrella. USAmerican perceptions of the original nation and circumstances of immigration have a lot to do with how Latinos are perceived. Phenotype is secondary. It seems to me, based on my own experiences, that the perceptions of Anglo Americans (White, Black and otherwise) will also vary with the socioeconomic status of the broader Latino ethnic group in the local region. Where I live, Mexican Americans who appear European aren't treated better or worse by Anglos because they are "Mexican" and that's what matters. They may be treated better among Mexican Americans due to colorism.
Cuban Americans with a Euro phenotype, on the other hand, seem to able to "blend" into whiteness as Anglo Americans define it. I think politics and the history of their immigration has a large impact on how they are perceived by Anglos.
I would not be surprised to find that the same Latino person with a Euro appearance would be treated quite differently by the same people merely by changing their nationality. Would an Argentinian be treated better or worse than a Mexican or Puerto Rican? It might depend on how their country of origin/ancestral country is perceived by Anglo Americans.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
button