Joined: 11 May 2005 {Posts: 84 } Location: New York
Posted: Sun 29 Apr 2007 17:56 Post subject: Re: "Racial" Definitions
fwsweet wrote:
LMartin wrote:
Unlike North America where one drop of black blood makes you black, in Latin America it is one drop of white blood makes you mixed. Not white, but mixed. Even more strangely, Latinos do not have a mixed-race identity. Theirs is an ethnic (as in language-based) identity. So Latinos are not likely to become upset at the idea that they are mixed. They are more likely to just admit it and move on. What they are more likely to become upset about is the idea that they are not mixed, thereby giving them no claim to the language basis of the identity. “Purity” would be permissible only for Spanish heritage, as this is the source of the language identity.
That is very wise and insightful. My only quibble, based on my own family and friends, is that while purity of Spanish language and cultural traits is revered, purity of Spanish blood is disdained. My grandparents, uncles and aunts vehemently hated Spaniards (at least, they said they did).
Frank, what about your mother who you admitted (somewhere on this site) would not even entertain the idea of being mixed? I don't doubt that your uncles hated Spaniards. But did that hatred include unmixed Spanish descended Puerto Ricans? My guess is that purity of Spanish blood would be disdained only when it disdains a Puerto Rican identity.
Posted: Sun 29 Apr 2007 18:05 Post subject: Re: "Racial" Definitions
LMartin wrote:
what about your mother who you admitted (somewhere on this site) would not even entertain the idea of being mixed?
She has no problem with our family's Native American ancestry. Indeed, her mother-in-law (my paternal grandmother) was Mexican. My mom just refuses to consider the possibility of African blood. Sort of like Omar. Still, we will be going to PR in June to visit with her, so I will check it out again and let you know.
LMartin wrote:
I don't doubt that your uncles hated Spaniards. But did that hatred include unmixed Spanish descended Puerto Ricans? My guess is that purity of Spanish blood would be disdained only when it disdains a Puerto Rican identity.
You may be right. Now that I think about it (I was just a kid), the hatred was usually expressed during arguments about Franco.
Joined: 11 May 2005 {Posts: 84 } Location: New York
Posted: Sun 29 Apr 2007 18:25 Post subject: Re: "Racial" Definitions
fwsweet wrote:
LMartin wrote:
Unlike North America where one drop of black blood makes you black, in Latin America it is one drop of white blood makes you mixed. Not white, but mixed. Even more strangely, Latinos do not have a mixed-race identity. Theirs is an ethnic (as in language-based) identity. So Latinos are not likely to become upset at the idea that they are mixed. They are more likely to just admit it and move on. What they are more likely to become upset about is the idea that they are not mixed, thereby giving them no claim to the language basis of the identity. “Purity” would be permissible only for Spanish heritage, as this is the source of the language identity.
That is very wise and insightful.
Thank you, Frank.
I remember, some time ago, on a thread about Dominicans, someone had drawn a comparison between the Anglo and Hispanic one-drop rules. You were taken by it and hoped it might lead to a deeper understanding of the relationship of the two cultures. I had the same reaction as you, and started thinking about it. This is part of that thought process, emphasizing language rather than the vaguer notion of ethnicity. I still don't have all of it. But hopefully someday I can understand the two systems more clearly.
Joined: 13 Mar 2007 {Posts: 261 } Location: Canada
Posted: Wed 02 May 2007 18:17 Post subject:
Sorry I have been silent but I had to step away from this forum for a while to gather my thoughts about all this.
A.D. Powell, there were many things that I did not like about the book but I won't get into those because maybe I don't think that they are important to the bigger picture.
Things the book made me think about, (and continue to think about) were:
-Political strategy, (either conservative, liberal or other) and the tool of racial categorization.
-The most basic unchangable meanings behind the categorizing terms of "black" and "white" and the world-wide affect.
-The psychological impact of racial categorization on the individual and his/her personal pay-offs gained by the idea of racial categories as reality.
Joined: 02 Oct 2007 {Posts: 226 } Location: Seattle
Posted: Tue 09 Oct 2007 03:59 Post subject: IMPETUS
Dear AD:
Prior to beginning your book, I'm wondering what stimulated it's creation as it is a RARELY discussed topic.
Furthermore, I wish to know how "White By Definition" influenced it, if @ all.
Last edited by lsgh on Mon 19 Nov 2007 21:44; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Tue 09 Oct 2007 15:44 Post subject: Re: IMPETUS
LSGH wrote:
Dear AD:
Prior to beginning your book, I'm wondering what stimulated it's creation as it is a RARELY discussed topic. Furthermore, I wisht to know how "White By Definition" influenced it, if @ all.
I respect WHITE BY DEFINITION as the best book written so far on Creoles and their "racial" situation. Virginia Dominguez is professional and fair, without an ax to grind.
Remember that my book consists of essays previously published on "Interracial Voice" with the exception of the lead essay, which was the speech I made to a convention of Melungeons (Southern whites who have discovered and now celebrate their mixed race ancestry):
The "inspiration" for my writings comes from three main sources:
1) The presentation of the "one drop rule" as both racist (originating from whites) and "progressive" (helping and supporting blacks) and the character assassination visited upon "tarbrushed" Anglos and Creoles who have the temerity to claim a nonblack identity (especially a white identity, which is presented by supposed nonracists as the equivalent of reaching for godhood). This presentation of the ODR as good confuses people of good will. If the blacks say it's true, it must be true because blacks can't be racist, right? (Groan) I'd rather see "Birth of a Nation" on TV 24/7 than "Imitation of Life."
2) The Hispanic (and Arab) escape hatch. Carl Degler and other scholars were eager to discuss the "mulatto escape hatch" of Brazil and other countries of Latin America, but there seemed to be a tacit understanding to not talk about the Hispanic "escape hatch" in the USA. We are constantly told by the media and popular histories that "one drop" started in slavery (untrue) and is still enforced by "society" (i.e., "whites"), but no one follows that with "Of course, this does not apply to Hispanics and Arabs." After all, if "white" America is so racist that a "drop" of "black blood" is unacceptable in an otherwise racially and culturally white person, why should it be welcome for intermarriage with "pure" whites if said "drop" (or "bucket") came via Latin America or North Africa and the Middle East? Does Spanish or Arabic remove the supposed genetic inferiority of "black blood" or are we playing a game with unwritten rules? The "one drop rule" of today is supported by American blacks and it seems that those "whites" who go out of their way to publicly support the ODR are the most liberal "whites" who want to please "blacks" (as long as it costs THEM nothing).
3) My readings on the Nazi Holocaust and the history of European Jews in general. The history of European Jews and their efforts to assimilate into European gentile society is very much like the history of "mixed race" people in the European diaspora. Why are we told that the Germans were stupid and evil to consider German Jews a separate and inferior "race" when said Jews looked like Germans and shared the same language and culture when we in the USA are taught the same thing regarding "black blood"? How can Hitler be wrong and the black/liberal white elite right regarding invisible "race" and mystical, all-dominant "blood"? I say they are BOTH WRONG.
Posted: Fri 19 Oct 2007 23:20 Post subject: Re: IMPETUS
LSGH wrote:
Quote:
...a convention of Melungeons (Southern whites who have discovered and now celebrate their mixed race ancestry)
Dear AD:
what was your experience with the melungeons & redbones?...Mine was quite positive.
Quote:
If the blacks say it's true, it must be true because blacks can't be racist, right? (Groan)
Contemporary Blacks ought to be ashamed of themselves! They no longer teach King's dream & most elite Blacks won't be satisfied until they've exacted revenge upon Whites! Meanwhile, they give Black West Africans a "Pass" as if Black West Africans didn't trade them to The White Man...Furthermore, in addition to spreading pervasive Black Sumpremacy myths, they stereotype every MGM(Multi-Generational Mulato) as being a product of rape! SHAME on you, Africa-America, SHAME on you!
Thank You, AD & I look forward to experiencing your scholarship.
My experiences with the Melungeons (2 conventions) and Redbones (one convention) were very positive.
Posted: Wed 02 Jul 2008 19:12 Post subject: Re: "Passing for Who You Really Are"
Powell wrote:
Patience, the book does not address the issues you raised. It advocates an end to the doctrine of white racial purity and its replacement by the concept of multiracial whiteness (which exists in reality but is officially denied). It advocates an end to forced hypodescent and the "one drop" myth, as well as an end to the demonization of part-black whites accused of "passing." The book expresses outrage at the fact that white racial purity and forced hypodescent are, NOWADAYS, pushed on society by people (primarily black organizations and their allies) who present themselves to the public as the judges of what and who is or is not "racist."
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
I'd rather see "Birth of a Nation" on TV 24/7 than "Imitation of Life."
