Just reading this one once again. The one drop rule did not target Whites. It did not target Whites. It targeted people of mixed ancestry. When the mix was obvious it never made it to court. When it wasn't obvious it went to court. As the "offending" drop was Black, obviously it would never affect a Black person as they didn't have a drop, but the full cup. It could accidentally target a person of pure European ancestry, but it was not meant to target them. The one drop rule also accidentally targeted people of non European looks if they were ambiguous enough to assume African ancestry.
On what basis do you claim this? In all of the court cases that enforced the one-drop rule in the Jim Crow era, the defendants: (1) Self-identified as White, (2) Associated with Whites, (3) looked completely and utterly White, and (3) no evidence was ever presented that they had any genealogy other than European. On what possible grounds can you personally "know" that they were not White?
Salsassin wrote:
It targeted people of mixed ancestry.
What do you mean by this? Everyone on earth has "mixed ancestry" in some sense. If you are claiming that the defendants in the 100-odd court cases that enforced the ODR in the Jim Crow era actually had ancestors who had once been African-descended slaves, I would love to see your evidence of this. It is a shame that you were not around when the cases were being prosecuted, since you evidently have uncovered information that the prosecuting lawyers at the time could not find.
(Of course, since 1/3 of self-identified White Americans have detectable sub-Saharan DNA markers from slave ancestors, you could plausibly argue the likelihood that 1/3 of the people prosecuted under the ODR really did have slave ancestry without realizing it. But if that is your argument, then so did 1/3 of the judges, the attorneys on both sides, the spectators, the court stenographers, and the journalists who covered the trials.)
On what basis do you claim this? In all of the court cases that enforced the one-drop rule in the Jim Crow era, the defendants: (1) Self-identified as White, (2) Associated with Whites, (3) looked completely and utterly White, and (3) no evidence was ever presented that they had any genealogy other than European. On what possible grounds can you personally "know" that they were not White?
Again, read my post. I never spoke to self identity. The one drop rule targeted people of mixed ancestry. Known mixed ancestry. Wether they identified as White or not. Blacks by their own identification already were more than a drop. If it targeted Whites overall then it would have been a drop of White blood. Because even all people of supposedly pure White ancestry would be guilty of the rule. Here only people of mixed ancestry if provable where the targets. If someone could prove beyond a legal standard that they did not have the ancestry in question they were excused. So how does this target all whites? No, it targets those whites who are of mixed ancestry. It also targets those who were not identified as White by excluding them. No court decision necessary if the ancestry was obvious in the face. Froma person looking heaviliy mixed to looking mostly African, the one drop rule excluded them. The court cases only focused on those that eyeballing and common records had not already labeled as having African ancestry.
Quote:
Salsassin wrote:
It targeted people of mixed ancestry.
What do you mean by this? Everyone on earth has "mixed ancestry" in some sense. If you are claiming that the defendants in the 100-odd court cases that enforced the ODR in the Jim Crow era actually had ancestors who had once been African-descended slaves, I would love to see your evidence of this. It is a shame that you were not around when the cases were being prosecuted, since you evidently have uncovered information that the prosecuting lawyers at the time could not find.
(Of course, since 1/3 of self-identified White Americans have detectable sub-Saharan DNA markers from slave ancestors, you could plausibly argue the likelihood that 1/3 of the people prosecuted under the ODR really did have slave ancestry without realizing it. But if that is your argument, then so did 1/3 of the judges, the attorneys on both sides, the spectators, the court stenographers, and the journalists who covered the trials.)
Again, the targets where people of mixed ancestry. Wether the judges had it or not is irrelevant as the public did not know it. If not many of them would have been targets as well. Once some one was presumed to have African ancestry, they were targeted. They weren't targeted because they were just assumed to be only White. Obviously the courts back then did not have evidence of DNA.
The one drop rule targeted people of mixed ancestry. Known mixed ancestry.
You are merely re-asserting an unsubstantiated opinion that flies in the face of the court records. Again, I ask ask, "On what grounds do you make this claim?" Please consider this a first warning to substantiate your assertion. (Merely re-stating it a fourth or fifth time will not count as substantiation.) I have studied every appealed ODR court case that was ever held. Not one targeted people of "known mixed ancestry." Not one. If you have uncovered one, now is the time to bring it forth. You have 24 hours.
Salsassin wrote:
If someone could prove beyond a legal standard that they did not have the ancestry in question they were excused.
That is factually inaccurate. The only acceptable legal standard was to prove that you had no African ancestry, no matter how far back. Even judges complained that this was impossible. Hence, once accused, no one could get off the hook. Indeed, once brought into court, no one ever did. Not one. If you have uncovered a case where someone was "excused" by "proving beyond a legal standard that they did not have the ancestry in question," now is the time to bring it forth. You have 24 hours.
Salsassin wrote:
No court decision necessary if the ancestry was obvious in the face.
If African ancestry was visible, then it was not the ODR. See the definition of ODR in The Rules 3.3.10. The ODR only refers to people who look completely European.
The one drop rule targeted people of mixed ancestry. Known mixed ancestry.
You are simply re-asserting an unsubstantiated opinion that flies in the face of the court records. Again, I ask ask, "On what grounds do you make this claim?" Please consider this a first warning to substantiate your assertion. (Merely re-stating it a fourth or fifth time will not count as substantiation.) I have studied every appealed ODR court case case that was ever held. Not one targeted people of "known mixed ancestry." Not one. If you have uncovered one, now is the time to bring it forth. You have 24 hours.
Please show me how court cases indicate all exclusion based on law. Multiple people are fined every day and do not need to go to court because the assumption is that they are guilty. Only in borderline cases are court decisions necessary. Even more so on appeals. You forget you are speaking to someone who studies law. You may have studied the court cases, but you seem to be taking them out of the larger picture of the juridical process. Just because you didn't see appeals including people of known African Ancestry doesn't mean they weren't targeted. It only means they did not try to challenge the law as it applied to them through the courts.
Quote:
Salsassin wrote:
If someone could prove beyond a legal standard that they did not have the ancestry in question they were excused.
That is factually inaccurate. The only acceptable legal standard was to prove that you had no African ancestry, no matter how far back. Even judges complained that this was impossible. Hence, once accused, no one could get off the hook. Indeed, once brought into court, no one ever did. Not one. If you have uncovered a case where someone was "excused" by "proving beyond a legal standard that they did not have the ancestry in question," now is the time to bring it forth. You have 24 hours.
Strawman Frank as I never claimed what the legal standard was. They may have set the legal standard low enough that a rumor would suffice. Then the person would have to prove that the rumor was false somehow which can be impossible as you say. They still were adjudicated on the assumption that they had African Ancestry, thus targeting them because they were presumed mixed.
Quote:
Salsassin wrote:
No court decision necessary if the ancestry was obvious in the face.
If African ancestry was visible, then it was not the ODR. See the definition of ODR in The Rules 3.3.10. The ODR only refers to people who look completely European.
OK. I see you are going by your Bible. Well then I am speaking of hypodescent. The one drop rule still only targeted people of assumed mixed ancestry who looked European. Not all European looking people.
Now, taking it outside your book, laws that stated ""The words 'persons of negro race' shall be held to apply to and include any person who has in his or her veins any negro blood whatever." Did not mention if the person was European looking or not. Just that they have "any negro blood" {read one drop}. In fact, a person who had Native Ancestry might be challenged under this statute if one assumed his looks were mixed and the mixture might be African. In other words the law could target non White looking people as well. Tennessee defined Blacks in terms of "mulattoes, mestizos, and their descendants, having any blood {read one drop} of the African race in their veins". Again, in this concept of any blood which sounds like one drop, the laws were not just targeting people of European looks. Again even quoting you: "The problem was that a 1905 law forbade any child, “with negro blood in his veins, however remote the strain, from attending a school for the white race.”" There is no mention on the person's appearance. The restriction was for all people with African Ancestry. The fact that it was litigated for White looking people was because there was a question about that ancestry.
Last edited by Salsassin on Tue 01 Jul 2008 19:57; edited 1 time in total
If someone could prove beyond a legal standard that they did not have the ancestry in question they were excused.
That is factually inaccurate. The only acceptable legal standard was to prove that you had no African ancestry, no matter how far back. Even judges complained that this was impossible. Hence, once accused, no one could get off the hook. Indeed, once brought into court, no one ever did. Not one. If you have uncovered a case where someone was "excused" by "proving beyond a legal standard that they did not have the ancestry in question," now is the time to bring it forth. You have 24 hours.
I'll quote your own article:
Quote:
Medlin v. Board of Education, 1914 North Carolina. In the 1913-1914 school year, the children of J.R. Medlin were expelled from Public School No. 2, House’s Creek Township, Wake County, North Carolina, on the ground that their mother, Nan Powers, was rumored to have had a grandmother of mixed ancestry. In Medlin v. Board of Education, 1914 North Carolina, the parents obtained a writ of mandamus after a county court trial characterized solely by hearsay. No witness offered documentation of the grandmother’s ancestry. No witness had ever seen Mrs. Medlin’s grandmother. Instead, every witness testified solely as to rumors that they had heard and whether, in the witness’s opinion, the rumors had been started deliberately and with malicious intent. The jury found the Medlin children to be White and the school board appealed. On November 18, 1914, the Supreme Court of North Carolina upheld the lower court in a split decision. Chief Justice Clark wrote the ruling. The other two justices (Walker and Hoke) dissented. In essence, Justice Clark wrote a three-page explanation justifying his finding that the hearsay and innuendo offered by plaintiff’s witnesses (that the rumor of a mixed grandmother was maliciously invented) were more persuasive than testimony for the defense. In his eyes, the children were members of the White endogamous group. Justices Walter and Hoke wrote a six-page dissent, finding that the hearsay and innuendo offered by defense’s witnesses (that the rumor of a mixed grandmother was not malicious—it was invented out of civic duty) were more persuasive than testimony for the plaintiff. In their eyes, the children were members of the Black endogamous group.46 Interestingly, in this case Justice Hoke abandoned his reliance on the state Constitution’s blood-fraction definition, which he had held to four years earlier in Ferrall v. Ferrall, Instead, he went with the school-segregation statute’s one-drop rule, following the precedent set by Justices Walker and Clark two months earlier in Johnson v. Board of Education.47 Again, no one disputed that the Medlin children were genetically White.
As you state, the one drop rule was even addressed by one of the dissenting Judges. But the writ of mandamus was upheld, not because of a blood fraction law but because the jury held the rumors to be not convincing. Thus they were seen as White.
Earlier, you asserted: "The one drop rule did not target Whites." Unless you object, I will accept this as a retraction of your previous assertion.
Salsassin wrote:
The one drop rule still only targeted people of assumed mixed ancestry who looked European.
Correct. The rhetorical excuse was that they had distant African ancestry. Earlier you asserted (four times): "the targets were people of mixed ancestry." There is a difference between a rhetorical excuse of invisible African ancestry by people long ago and your four-times bluntly here-and-now asserted fact of invisible African ancestry. Unless you object, I will accept this as a retraction of your previous assertion.
Salsassin wrote:
Now, taking it outside your book, laws that stated ""The words 'persons of negro race' shall be held to apply to and include any person who has in his or her veins any negro blood whatever." Did not mention if the person was European looking or not.
Correct. But in all of the ODR cases, the defendants did in fact look completely European. This is because of how we define ODR. If you wish to use the term "one-drop rule" to refer to hypodescent, or racism, or oppression, or anything other than the site-standard definition, you must make clear precisely what you mean by the term. I must insist that you either (1) use the site-standard definition or (2) define your personal usage.
Earlier, you asserted: "The one drop rule did not target Whites." Unless you object, I will accept this as a retraction of your previous assertion.
Not a retraction but a clarification. It did not target all Whites. It targeted people of presumed African ancestry within which could be White identified people.
Quote:
Salsassin wrote:
The one drop rule still only targeted people of assumed mixed ancestry who looked European.
Correct. The rhetorical excuse was that they had distant African ancestry. Earlier you asserted (four times): "the targets were people of mixed ancestry." There is a difference between a rhetorical excuse of invisible African ancestry by people long ago and your four-times bluntly here-and-now asserted fact of invisible African ancestry. Unless you object, I will accept this as a retraction of your previous assertion.
Nope. Again it was a clarification.
Salsassin wrote:
It targeted people of mixed ancestry. When the mix was obvious it never made it to court.
Salsassin wrote:
The one drop rule targeted people of mixed ancestry. Known mixed ancestry. Wether they identified as White or not. No, it targets those whites who are of mixed ancestry.
Once some one was presumed to have African ancestry, they were targeted. They weren't targeted because they were just assumed to be only White.
Salsassin wrote:
They still were adjudicated on the assumption that they had African Ancestry, thus targeting them because they were presumed mixed.
The one drop rule still only targeted people of assumed mixed ancestry who looked European. Not all European looking people.
The restriction was for all people with African Ancestry. The fact that it was litigated for White looking people was because there was a question about that ancestry.
I am clearly stating that they are targeted because of a presumption of admixture. In Witchhunt laws the targets where Witches. Who got prosecuted is a different story. In criminal cases many innocent people get convicted. It doesn't mean they were the targets of the law.
Quote:
Salsassin wrote:
Now, taking it outside your book, laws that stated ""The words 'persons of negro race' shall be held to apply to and include any person who has in his or her veins any negro blood whatever." Did not mention if the person was European looking or not.
Correct. But in all of the ODR cases, the defendants did in fact look completely European. This is because of how we define ODR. If you wish to use the term "one-drop rule" to refer to hypodescent, or racism, or oppression, or anything other than the site-standard definition, you must make clear precisely what you mean by the term. I must insist that you either (1) use the site-standard definition or (2) define your personal usage.
OK. So I am using my personal usage based on the statutory language.
Like I said before:
Salsassin wrote:
Please show me how court cases indicate all exclusion based on law. Multiple people are fined every day and do not need to go to court because the assumption is that they are guilty. Only in borderline cases are court decisions necessary. Even more so on appeals.
Furthermore, while Appeals are recorded for posterity, your garden variety court cases are not. That you only found appeals records relating to European looking people does not negate the possibility of trial courts on the lower levels that never made it into the appeals process.
As it stands now we have insufficient evidence to make the claim either way. But I can say the statutory language included people of non-European looks. Whether it was ever litigated at the trial court level, I don't know.
My personal usage is based on statutory text such as these
Salsassin wrote:
"The words 'persons of negro race' shall be held to apply to and include any person who has in his or her veins any negro blood whatever."
Tennessee defined Blacks in terms of "mulattoes, mestizos, and their descendants, having any blood {read one drop} of the African race in their veins". Again, in this concept of any blood which sounds like one drop, the laws were not just targeting people of European looks. Again even quoting you: "The problem was that a 1905 law forbade any child, “with negro blood in his veins, however remote the strain, from attending a school for the white race.”" There is no mention on the person's appearance.
In other words language such as "any blood", "negro blood, however remote the strain" is language that is stating that one drop is enough. Thus, a one drop rule. But these laws did not only apply to European looking people. They also succinctly applied to mulattoes, mestizos and their descendants.
In other words language such as "any blood", "negro blood, however remote the strain" is language that is stating that one drop is enough. Thus, a one drop rule. But these laws did not only apply to European looking people. They also succinctly applied to mulattoes, mestizos and their descendants.
Yes. And they applied more vigorously, more often, in more regions of the world, and over longer stretches of history to people of completely sub-Saharan appearance. Your usage defines "one-drop rule" as any oppression based on African ancestry. If you feel comfortable with such a definition, feel free to use it. But, from now on, make your all-inclusive definition clear whenever you use the term "one-drop rule" in this website. It differs dramatically in denotation, connotation, and intent from the site standard.
Salsassin wrote:
That you only found appeals records relating to European looking people does not negate the possibility of trial courts on the lower levels that never made it into the appeals process.
Of course. Duh! Given your usage of "one-drop rule" (meaning any laws dealing with any African ancestry), countless cases are heard every day. Every Batson hearing, every affirmative action claim, every discrimination in the workplace claim is an example of the one-drop rule by your usage. This is in no way comparable to the notion of invisible blackness that is undetectable and intangible by definition, which comprises my field of study.
In other words language such as "any blood", "negro blood, however remote the strain" is language that is stating that one drop is enough. Thus, a one drop rule. But these laws did not only apply to European looking people. They also succinctly applied to mulattoes, mestizos and their descendants.
Yes. And they applied more vigorously, more often, in more regions of the world, and over longer stretches of history to people of completely sub-Saharan appearance. Your usage defines "one-drop rule" as any oppression based on African ancestry. If you feel comfortable with such a definition, feel free to use it. But, from now on, make your all-inclusive definition clear whenever you use the term "one-drop rule" in this website. It differs dramatically in denotation, connotation, and intent from the site standard.
Salsassin wrote:
That you only found appeals records relating to European looking people does not negate the possibility of trial courts on the lower levels that never made it into the appeals process.
Of course. Duh! Given your usage of "one-drop rule" (meaning any laws dealing with any African ancestry), countless cases are heard every day. Every Batson hearing, every affirmative action claim, every discrimination in the workplace claim is an example of the one-drop rule by your usage. This is in no way comparable to the notion of invisible blackness that is undetectable and intangible by definition, which comprises my field of study.
Which I understand is your field of study. But understand that law is my field of study and therefore I am accustomed to going the elements of the statutory language. And in court decisions I am accustomed to looking for specific elements that define the rule. That is my point. That is why I understand that you are exploring the effects on European looking people, but I was just commenting on the possible application of the law itself.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
