Posted: Thu 05 Mar 2009 04:26 Post subject: A Biracial Soldier's Open Letter to President Obama
Quote:
Dear President Obama:
First and foremost, congratulations on being our 44th President of the United States of America.
During your campaign, I agreed with your call for change and I still do; a change in our economy and a change in how things are done in Washington.
You are the epitome of what positive things can happen from change. A change from the racial divide of miscegenation that so deeply swept our country decades ago to a country known today for accepting people of all cultures, backgrounds and colors. However, I am waiting for one big change…to accept who you truly are…the God made biracial man, our President of the United States. I and my family have been disappointed about the message you give to millions of people throughout our great country by saying if you are biracial you can choose to be of ‘one’ race.
Those who believe that a person who is one part black should identify ONLY with that race support the intolerant one-drop rule created by a racially prejudiced government at a particular point in history. Despite that rule being held illegal (U.S. Supreme Court outlawed Virginia's ban on inter-racial marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), it declared Plecker's Virginia Racial Integrity Act and the one-drop rule unconstitutional) there are some who want to hold to that fanatical and discriminatory rule.
This close minded thinking underlies the attack often faced by biracial people that they are trying to deny or are ashamed of who they are. Being biracial does not mean denying the colorful heritages we possess. Personally, I understand the difficulty you may have encountered growing up as a biracial young man, especially having a brown complexion.
Yes, biracial people from the time they are born to the time they die are constantly asked to choose their "primary" race, or others will do it for them. We are called offensive names like; yellow banana, oreo, mutt, etc., all meant to hurt who we truly represent, a nation of one blood. However, this is a new day, a changed day where we can finally embrace who we really are.
To be the 44th President of the United States, who is biracial, should be a proud statement of equality that exemplifies and represents what the United States is known for; a nation that embraces all shades, colors, and cultures of people.
Other well-known people, who are biracial, have expressed their sentiments when asked the question, what are you; Derek Jeter of the New York Yankees said “I’m not black or white but both of these things.” Vin Diesel refuses to segregate himself to one race and identifies himself as biracial. Growing up, he had many questions about his ethnic origins and what they made him. Although most people guess he's part Italian and African-American, he said "I'm hoping I can show kids where you came from isn't as important as what you can make of yourself."
Like you President Obama, I am the blending of two races. My mother is black and my father is white. As with your mother and father, my parents were able to see and experience a love that bridged racial divides.
Throughout the years, as I got older and like you, I faced some extremely difficult and joyful times. Early in my life, I experienced both the harsh reality of my mother and father divorcing and then I witnessed the wonderful blending of new stepparents.
As a biracial child, I remember telling my father about a time when I was in the third grade my teacher asked for the children to stand up based upon their race. When she told all the white kids to stand up, I stood up. When she told all the Hispanic kids to stand up, I sat down. Then she told all the Black kids to stand up and I stood up. My father said that was a defining moment for me in being biracial that I still stand up for today.
When I was 15, I saw a movie with Halle Berry and thought the world of her, as did most teenage males my age. However, I saw her as someone like me, biracial. On my sweet-16 birthday, my father arranged for Ms. Berry to surprise me with a telephone call. From that point on the two of us exchanged letters and referred to each other as big sister and little brother. I believed Ms. Berry was a face of hope for biracial people. I looked up to her because she embodied the blending of races. However as I got older and much to my dismay, I heard Ms. Berry claim that she was black not biracial. This caused me to see the woman, who I once called my big sister, a runaway from all who are biracial. Then another face of hope showed up, you President Obama, only for me to again experience disappointment.
While you were sworn-in as our 44th President and my Commander and Chief that I am proud for you to be, I am in Afghanistan. For the past 10 years, I have faithfully with love and honor served in our Armed Forces. I serve not for myself but for the love of the United States of America.
On election night, you said “This victory alone is not the change we seek – it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you. For that is the true genius of America – that America can change.”
Therefore, President Obama we cannot go back to the one-drop of black blood rule. With you as President, America has truly come a long way. However as you said, “there is so much more to do.” As with your children I to want my future children to live to see the next century and be as fortunate as the woman you spoke about, Ann Nixon Cooper; to see a change for all races of people including those of us who are biracial.
The question for you President Obama is what progress will we have made? Identifying to one race, clouds the dream that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wished for 45 years ago when he said; “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation that will not judge them by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”.
In your speech "A More Perfect Union" you said that race is an issue that you believed this nation could not afford to ignore right now and I agree. I am part of that next generation of young people you spoke to who possesses the attitude, belief and openness to change that gives you the greatest hope.
I can only ask that during your administration you renew the discussion about race and stand up for me and all of us who are biracial as I stood-up in the 3rd grade. President Obama, now is your chance for your children and all of us who are biracial to clear the clouds about race by answering the call. This is your moment. This is your time.
The question for you President Obama is what progress will we have made? Identifying to one race, clouds the dream that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wished for 45 years ago when he said; “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation that will not judge them by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”.
And yet for some reason, a lot of biracial people I know are forcing people to call themselves biracial or multiracial, instead of letting them choose how they feel/
It is equally wrong to force biracial people to join the ranks as it is to force someone to identify as only one race. This is what annoys me so much about the movement-- the idea that the only reason why someone would not want to identify as biracial is because he/she has identity issues or has been forced to chose a monoracial identity.
Quite frankly, a large percentage of black-identified biracial people acknowledge their biracial heritage, but feel more comfortable identifying as black for personal reasons that don't have to do with oppression or racism or the one drop rule.
Just as monoracial people like to try to guilt trip biracial and multiracial people into identifying a certain way, this young man seems like he's trying to guilt trip President Obama and Halle Berry into calling themselves biracial (which he already does and she does in many instances).
Black, to me, is my culture and heritage. Sure my ancestors came from many different continents, but I identify as black because that is my choice. Forcing me to chose biracial because it makes you feel better or empowered is as ridiculous as forcing my blonde hair blue-eyed grandmother to be black because one drop of black blood made it so.
Posted: Sat 07 Mar 2009 18:43 Post subject: Force?
Famu wrote:
Quote:
The question for you President Obama is what progress will we have made? Identifying to one race, clouds the dream that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wished for 45 years ago when he said; “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation that will not judge them by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”.
And yet for some reason, a lot of biracial people I know are forcing people to call themselves biracial or multiracial, instead of letting them choose how they feel/
It is equally wrong to force biracial people to join the ranks as it is to force someone to identify as only one race. This is what annoys me so much about the movement-- the idea that the only reason why someone would not want to identify as biracial is because he/she has identity issues or has been forced to chose a monoracial identity.
Quite frankly, a large percentage of black-identified biracial people acknowledge their biracial heritage, but feel more comfortable identifying as black for personal reasons that don't have to do with oppression or racism or the one drop rule.
Just as monoracial people like to try to guilt trip biracial and multiracial people into identifying a certain way, this young man seems like he's trying to guilt trip President Obama and Halle Berry into calling themselves biracial (which he already does and she does in many instances).
Black, to me, is my culture and heritage. Sure my ancestors came from many different continents, but I identify as black because that is my choice. Forcing me to chose biracial because it makes you feel better or empowered is as ridiculous as forcing my blonde hair blue-eyed grandmother to be black because one drop of black blood made it so.
I don't know what biracial people you're talking about. The fact is that "biracial people" as a group have no institutional or political power in the United States. "Blacks" as a group have plenty of it. No "biracial people" have the power to "force" an identity on anyone.
Posted: Fri 13 Mar 2009 13:36 Post subject: Re: Force?
Powell wrote:
Famu wrote:
Quote:
The question for you President Obama is what progress will we have made? Identifying to one race, clouds the dream that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wished for 45 years ago when he said; “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation that will not judge them by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”.
And yet for some reason, a lot of biracial people I know are forcing people to call themselves biracial or multiracial, instead of letting them choose how they feel/
It is equally wrong to force biracial people to join the ranks as it is to force someone to identify as only one race. This is what annoys me so much about the movement-- the idea that the only reason why someone would not want to identify as biracial is because he/she has identity issues or has been forced to chose a monoracial identity.
Quite frankly, a large percentage of black-identified biracial people acknowledge their biracial heritage, but feel more comfortable identifying as black for personal reasons that don't have to do with oppression or racism or the one drop rule.
Just as monoracial people like to try to guilt trip biracial and multiracial people into identifying a certain way, this young man seems like he's trying to guilt trip President Obama and Halle Berry into calling themselves biracial (which he already does and she does in many instances).
Black, to me, is my culture and heritage. Sure my ancestors came from many different continents, but I identify as black because that is my choice. Forcing me to chose biracial because it makes you feel better or empowered is as ridiculous as forcing my blonde hair blue-eyed grandmother to be black because one drop of black blood made it so.
I don't know what biracial people you're talking about. The fact is that "biracial people" as a group have no institutional or political power in the United States. "Blacks" as a group have plenty of it. No "biracial people" have the power to "force" an identity on anyone.
I'm not using force in any political or institutional sense. But thanks for once again missing the point on purpose.
I am forwarding my response to an email message I received from Susan Graham, Executive Director, of Project RACE.
It would be great to have the 'race' question dropped entirely from the U.S. census and from job and school applications. As an assistant professor teaching Issues in Human Resources Management, it is alarming to know that in the directions given by the Federal government on an EEO-1 report it allows observer identification to be used if an employee declines to self-identify. Accordingly, an employer could identify an individual as being black, Hispanic, et cetera.
As I am typing this message, I am watching on TV a live town-hall meeting with President Obama. A question from the audience was asked by a woman who identified herself as being biracial. She commended President Obama in being mixed. He responded quickly by saying thank you and what is your question.
Take care,
Carl
________________________________
From: Jaskolski, Carl
Sent: Tue 3/17/2009 9:32 AM
To: Project RACE
Subject: RE: Soldier's letter for President Obama
Hello Susan:
I appreciate your reply and insight and apologize for the time it has taken for us to reply.
We see eye to eye that race is not a clear and concrete concept. The word as it is known in the U.S. is man made for there is really only one race- the human race. However, in the U.S. race has been defined with its subjectivity and rigid notions but is expanding to include biracial/multiracial.
I am sure we can further agree there is a distinction between "ancestry" and "identity." However, and unfortunate as it may be, when a person first sees an individual it is through "identity (i.e., race)" that people in the U.S. single out a person not their ancestry. Even though President Obama does associate to his ancestry, his choice of identity is black not multiracial. This identification embraces the 'one drop of black blood' rule that once was viewed as being racist and discriminatory as now being openly acceptable and cherished. How can that be?
Although it may be one's 'right' in America to identify as one race, we do have a problem with President Obama or anyone else who is "really" biracial who self-identifies in that way because it is a lie and further clouds and takes away from the true meaning of being multiracial/biracial. We cannot nor should not be able to pick and choose our race. We are what we are and to say otherwise is a lie. A true leader declares the truth and may be rejected rather than withhold it just to be accepted. Their integrity demands that they do what is right even if it is unpleasant and unpopular.
Some have said that 'race is an identity'. Even President Obama has said that he embraces the black 'identity' because of whom he was most accepted by and associated with. Therefore, to use this argument would allow a young white male, who wears hip-hop clothing, listens to urban hip-hop music, and who communicates in a hip-hop style all associated with the black urban culture to say he is black. Based further on that premise, this white male would simply be making a statement about his identity, not his ancestry. This line of reasoning would allow anyone to identify to be of a race/color of their choosing because whom they associate with and are most accepted by, no matter the skin color.
We agree that the President referring to himself as a "mutt" was insensitive and demeaning to all who are multiracial. My wife and I believe it is just an indication that he has not truly come to terms with being multiracial.
Susan, you might be interested in reading an article that appeared in The Miami Herald.
In addition, Michelle Hughes a biracial attorney in Chicago wrote an essay explaining the way a multiracial person with one black parent identifies is often the result of several factors, including whether the person feels pressure from some in the black community to identify as black.
This is Michelle Hughes' essay:
A friend told me recently that my parents were a unique inter-racial couple. Even though my parents have been married for more than four decades, my mother, who's nearing 70, is still very much the optimistic white woman who grew up on a quiet Minnesota farm years ago in an all-white community. Being married to a black man hasn't altered her mannerisms or her speech pattern, or her "whiteness." Similarly, my 82-year-old father in large part is still the black man who came of age in Texas during the Jim Crow South. He can tell you stories of white men demanding "Take your hat off, boy, in my presence." He remains an advocate for racial justice as well as a dad who can't sit at a stoplight without reminding his children that a black man invented it.
My parents married two years prior to 1967 when it was still illegal in 14 states for them to do so. When they had their three children, in keeping with the thinking of the day, my parents considered us "black with a white mom."
As a child, I felt as though we were always on stage. Whenever my family walked into a restaurant or visited a different church out of town, everybody stared. My parents' racial makeup was unmistakable. But what about their children: Were we black, white, or both? My family was also unique in our South Side Chicago neighborhood and later in our suburban one. In the 5th grade, I remember explaining to a classmate that a black person and a white person could actually produce a child. So, at the ripe old age of 10, I found myself giving a dual lesson in sex education and being biracial.
Because I don't look particularly black or white, people often are curious about my racial makeup. Depending on the depth of my tan and if I'm wearing my hair curly, I could be labeled a light-skinned black person, a Latina or even an Italian. Those curious try to figure it out by using coded language, such as 'What are you?' or 'Where did you come from?' or "Where are your parents from?" Rarely do people forthrightly just ask, 'What's your racial background?'
They may be confused, but I've always been clear about who I am. When asked, I tell people that I'm biracial, or more precisely biracial via a black/white mix. "Biracial" gives me the option of recognizing both of my parents; both of whom were very much a part of my development.
I do understand why some mixed race people identify as "black with a white mom." If you look black, often it's simply less complicated to identify that way. It's easier to just relent to how society will define you. Sen. Barack Obama has said that he considers himself African American because he looks African American. He jokes that, in the past, he's had difficulty hailing a cab.
Still, "black with a white mom" is such a throwback to the old one-drop rule, which demanded that one drop of black blood so overwhelmed (and tainted) the white blood that it colored the person black. It seems offensive and derogatory to me to honor the rule.
And yet, the term biracial doesn't offer a cakewalk. It has social and political ramifications. "Biracial" sometimes plays poorly in the black community. Remember what happened to golfer Tiger Woods when he described himself as "Cablanasian," mixing his Caucasian, Black, and Asian ancestries? Some African Americans felt rebuffed because they wanted him to identify with them. At the very least, they wanted Woods--- the son of a black man and Asian woman---to see himself as "black with an Asian mom."
The whole "biracial" or "black with a white mom" nomenclature is such a product of this country's complicated and sordid racial past. There was a time when it was so objectionable to be black that some blacks wanted to be anything but. Some even claimed they were part Cherokee or latched on to some distant white lineage even when the evidence of such was little more than hearsay. So by the time black pride movement began, if you were biracial, considering yourself "black with a white mom" was important if you wanted to be part of a black community ever in the throes of redefining itself. I think that statement is BS. In attacks on Anatole Broyard, for example, he was often described as having little or no white ancestry because most of his traceable ancestors were "Negro" or "Colored" on paper. That didn't change the fact of his DNA and Euro phenotype.
But times are changing. You could say that I was born into the multiracial movement. What started with social networking groups has since blossomed to combine a variety of organizations advocating for efforts ranging from those on behalf of racial justice to fair media depictions of multiracial people and multiracial families.
I sit on the board of the Association of Multiethnic Americans (AMEA, one of the oldest national multiracial family organizations in the country. AMEA was instrumental in changing the 2000 census to allow multiracial people to check all the boxes that applied.
Since Obama has gained national prominence, more people are recognizing biracialism. In recent months, many articles have been written on the subject. Still, the candidate himself really hasn't explored it much beyond what he's written in his books. In short, his presence helps the movement by making us more visible. But he himself has been all-too silent.
These days, younger mixed-race people are anything but silent. More and more are inclined to define themselves in ways that represent both of their parents.
As for the Hughes family, my parents don't consider their three children "black with a white mom" anymore. They reared three independent thinkers who racially define themselves in various ways. My sister generally identifies as black. My brother has a complicated racial identity structure that starts with him being "human."
I will always be biracial. Like my father, I'm committed to advocacy and community outreach. Like my mother, I can look at the realities of a situation, see it clearly, and remain somewhat optimistic. Those are qualities that aren't particularly racial but necessary in moving forward when it comes to all matters of race.
Take care,
Carl Jaskolski
________________________________
From: Project RACE [mailto:projectrace@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Mon 3/9/2009 6:56 PM
To: Jaskolski, Carl; Project Race
Subject: Re: Soldier's letter for President Obama
Dear Carl and Olivia,
Thank you for e-mailing me about your son's letter to President Obama.
You have so many reasons to be proud of him.
I'm not exactly sure what A. D. Powell or you had in mind for contacting
me. Do you want us to post your son's letter on our Web site? If so, we
would need written permission from him. Do you wish for us to contact
President Obama? Has the letter been sent? If so, has it been
acknowledged? I'm not certain what Project RACE can do for you.
You should know that we differ somewhat on a few of the following issues:
1. I do not have the same problem with President Obama or anyone else
who is "really" biracial self-identifying as one race. I believe it is
their right and they have the opportunity to do so in America. I feel
that people who wish to identify as biracial or multiracial should also
have that right, and that is the cornerstone of our battle.
2. Project RACE took a stand on terminology in 1989 that has not changed
in the past 20 years. No, we do NOT appreciate our President referring
to himself or our children as "mutts." We polled our membership 20 years
ago and the word most properly descriptive terminology our members
wanted was "multiracial." We also use "biracial." We believe terminology
that brings dignity and respect with it for our children are biracial or
multiracial. We blatantly reject mutt, mixed, or anything else.
3. We do not feel that multiracial people should be limited to their
parents without regard for their grandparents,
great-grandparents or any other members of their families. It is just
not our place to decide who is or is not multiracial. We believe that if
you say you wish to identify yourself as multiracial, you are
multiracial. We are not the racial police and we do not feel anyone or
any entity should be, including the federal or state governments. We
would never tell someone who has a grandmother of a different race, for
example, that they could not be multiracial. Also, please take into
consideration that birth certificates usually do NOT carry the race of
the parents, so I do not think that would or should work.
4. I'm confused about where you live and where your son was raised. If
you are in Ohio, that was the first state to add a multiracial
classification for us in 1992. He can be multiracial in ten states
because of our work. He can not be multiracial to the federal government.
5. There is so much more to this battle for racial identity. Quite
honestly, I was a speaker at the California Teachers Association
Conference on Equity and Human Rights this past weekend, and after
talking non-stop about this issue for three days, I need a day or two to
get caught up. Let's e-mail our thoughts on this and when I have a
clearer picture, I would be happy and honored to speak with you.
Jaskolski, Carl wrote:
> Hello Ms. Graham:
>
> A.D. Powell, author of "Passing" for Who You Really Are and former columnist for the web site "Interracial Voice" recommended that we contact you.
>
> She believed that you would be interested in a letter our son and only child, who is in Afghanistan, wrote for President Obama (see attached).
>
> If you believe as we do that his letter is extremely moving and raises a number of issues and would like to share it with others, please forward it.
>
> Two weeks ago, as my wife and I were driving to Cleveland, Ohio to celebrate our grandmother's 99th birthday, we talked about why the race of 'biracial' should be an included category as with American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African American; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; and White. We further talked about how in order to simplify the issue of race it does not have to go back to great, great, great grandparents. It merely should go to the person's immediate race of their mother and father on the birth certificate.
>
> We would appreciate your comments and may be reached at 414-581-5189 or via this email address.
>
> Thank you,
> Carl and Olivia Jaskolski
>
To me, the important issue is not what ethnicity individuals choose, but whether the State has a valid reason to coerce and compel its citizens to choose a single B/W "race."
The saddest aspect of the situation is that some thought President Obama would support abolishing forced "racial" classification, merely because of his mixed ancestry. He cannot afford to do this. He must appeal to all the people. From his viewpoint it is not a question of morality, but of expediency.
The simple fact is that the great majority of Americans, especially the A-A political leadership, strongly believe that involuntary "racial" classification is necessary to fight "racism." Hence, they argue, anyone who wants to abolish forced "racial" classification must be a closet "racist." It is sad, but there it is.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 20 Mar 2009 21:25 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
To me, the important issue is not what ethnicity individuals choose, but whether the State has a valid reason to coerce and compel its citizens to choose a single B/W "race."
The saddest aspect of the situation is that some thought President Obama would support abolishing forced "racial" classification, merely because of his mixed ancestry. He cannot afford to do this. He must appeal to all the people. From his viewpoint it is not a question of morality, but of expediency.
The simple fact is that the great majority of Americans, especially the A-A political leadership, strongly believe that involuntary "racial" classification is necessary to fight "racism." Hence, they argue, anyone who wants to abolish forced "racial" classification must be a closet "racist." It is sad, but there it is.
This is true, I actually don't agree with this view (those who believe racial classifications should be forced) but it was pointed out to me by one of these folks (who was a black Hispanic) that the lack of "race" tracking by the government can result in a situation like France, where you have racial discrimination that most people agree is there to some extent but you can't prove anything because there are no statistics.
It merely should go to the person's immediate race of their mother and father on the birth certificate.
Your race is on your birth certificate? LOL, I obviously missed out.
Quote:
At the very least, they wanted Woods--- the son of a black man and Asian woman
And the thing I always find so funny about this, is that Tiger Woods is NOT the son of a black man and an Asian woman. He's the son of a black-identified man and an Asian-identified woman.
If this biracial person can simplify the races of Tiger Woods' parents without so much as an afterthought, I don't understand why we can't do it for ourselves.
I want the multiracial movement to be successful because it is positive and gives multiracial people who feel as if they are being forced to chose a race a place to go and find support. For example, my brother is having a son who with a girl who is biracial. I believe that child should be able to chose his ethnicity with no hassle and no fear.
Quote:
especially the A-A political leadership, strongly believe that involuntary "racial" classification is necessary to fight "racism."
Really? Could you point me to some articles/books/research that supports this claim? I'm genuinely interested.
The most inspiring personal account of one man's struggle against the concerted effort by A-A political leadership to crush freedom of self-identity and impose State-enforced involuntary "racial" classification ("in order to fight racism") is Ward Connerly, Creating Equal: My Fight Against Race Preferences (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2000).
A.D. and Charles can probably point you to more and better sources, since they were among the leaders of the multiracial movement.
Also, judging by his message above, DH apparently knows someone who feels this way. Perhaps he could tell us more, specifically contrasting involuntary "racial classification" (which is possible only in a culture that sees "race" as independent of appearance) with the situation in France, which suffers from colorism (discrimination against those who look different) and ethnocentrism (discrimination against those who speak or worship differently), but, as far as I know, has no "racism" at all (discrimination against those who look, speak, and worship like the hegemony, based merely on their ancestry).
The most inspiring personal account of one man's struggle against the concerted effort by A-A political leadership to crush freedom of self-identity and impose State-enforced involuntary "racial" classification ("in order to fight racism") is Ward Connerly, Creating Equal: My Fight Against Race Preferences (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2000).
A.D. and Charles can probably point you to more and better sources, since they were among the leaders of the multiracial movement.
Also, judging by his message above, DH apparently knows someone who feels this way. Perhaps he could tell us more, specifically contrasting involuntary "racial classification" (which is possible only in a culture that sees "race" as independent of appearance) with the situation in France, which suffers from colorism (discrimination against those who look different) and ethnocentrism (discrimination against those who speak or worship differently), but, as far as I know, has no "racism" at all (discrimination against those who look, speak, and worship like the hegemony, based merely on their ancestry).
The most inspiring personal account of one man's struggle against the concerted effort by A-A political leadership to crush freedom of self-identity and impose State-enforced involuntary "racial" classification ("in order to fight racism") is Ward Connerly, Creating Equal: My Fight Against Race Preferences (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2000).
A.D. and Charles can probably point you to more and better sources, since they were among the leaders of the multiracial movement.
Also, judging by his message above, DH apparently knows someone who feels this way. Perhaps he could tell us more, specifically contrasting involuntary "racial classification" (which is possible only in a culture that sees "race" as independent of appearance) with the situation in France, which suffers from colorism (discrimination against those who look different) and ethnocentrism (discrimination against those who speak or worship differently), but, as far as I know, has no "racism" at all (discrimination against those who look, speak, and worship like the hegemony, based merely on their ancestry).
I'm not sure he thinks "forced racial classification" is right, but that is what it amounts to. We have been round and round on this.
I understand and accept your definitions of racism and colorism, etc. This guy sees all these things are varying degrees of racism.
For example, he sees the situation in Sudan as "racist" when it is really colorism and ethnocentrism combined.
His view is that if you don't track "race" you have no way to tell if people are being discriminated against due to race. I pointed out what I considered obvious...that one can track race but have a biracial/multiracial category.
His response is pretty much that biracial and multiracial people can choose multiple categories if they choose at the federal level (I reminded him this is not true always at the state level)...he thinks the current situation is good in that we can tell who is part black and count them as black because in his opinion they likely "look black" in American social context (I guess an example would be Halle Berry and Obama, he is not talking about people like Vin Diesel or Mariah Carey.
I have even said that if discrimination is the concern we can make a visible minority category as in Canada. He thinks this is a joke because if a company hiring manager hates blacks he will just hire Asians and on paper it looks like they are "diverse"...as they are both "visible minorities".
I think this view is pretty common among many "civil rights activist" types, but I have no data to back up that opinion, it is based on those I have encountered in the real world and online.
I personally don't understand how having a category for mixed race people will "hide discrimination" and I have no been able to have anyone logically explain it to me. When I bring this up they the opponents tend to get emotional and say things like "they are black...anyway...and no one cares about white/Asian mixed people blah blah"...
A show on edu cable yesterday had a professor from Northern Arizona U talking about census "racial" classification. She tried desperately to get her audience to think, actually think, about "racial" classification. To no avail, I fear.
Trying to spark discussion, the professor asked one Hispanic-looking woman which "race" she checked off. "Black, of course," the woman answered. "And why do you consider yourself Black?" "Because I am Black." "I know, but why do you identify as Black?" "BECAUSE I AM BLACK!"
Later, she asked another audience member the same question. The woman thought for a moment, "Well if they had a Latina race I would check that, but since they don't I check White." "And why do you consider yourself White?" "Because I am White." ... etc.
I came away thinking that it is just hopeless. Otherwise intelligent people seem to turn into morons when their "racial" identity is probed.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Mon 23 Mar 2009 19:12 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
A show on edu cable yesterday had a professor from Northern Arizona U talking about census "racial" classification. She tried desperately to get her audience to think, actually think, about "racial" classification. To no avail, I fear.
Trying to spark discussion, the professor asked one Hispanic-looking woman which "race" she checked off. "Black, of course," the woman answered. "And why do you consider yourself Black?" "Because I am Black." "I know, but why do you identify as Black?" "BECAUSE I AM BLACK!"
Later, she asked another audience member the same question. The woman thought for a moment, "Well if they had a Latina race I would check that, but since they don't I check White." "And why do you consider yourself White?" "Because I am White." ... etc.
I came away thinking that it is just hopeless. Otherwise intelligent people seem to turn into morons when their "racial" identity is probed.
Very true.
It is the greatest self perpetuating scam in history...wish I came up with it.
This is a very interesting discussion on many levels.
Reading thru this, and I've had this question for a while, how does intermarriage with other multiracials (or marriage with non multiracials/biracials) affect the validaty of the 'multiracial' identity/community?
Example: if all amerasians / hapa / euroasians marry 'white' does it affect how serious the identity is taken?
Would marrying / breeding with other multiracials (specifically those with similar admixture) solidify the 'community'?
I've nown 1/2 white biracials who dated white and/or their circle of friends were white because it made the appear less black (I've actually had conversations)
I've met and know fair skinned or whiter looking biracials/multiracials who dated black(as in not visibly mixed) because they would have kids who looked mixed (this idea was similar to 'white looking' Puerto Ricans) who dated/married darker skinned Puerto Ricans to have children that 'looked Puerto Rican' the last person I heard this from is a woman I work with, she is the fairest one in the family the others look more 'stereotypically PR'
A question from the audience was asked by a woman who identified herself as being biracial. She commended President Obama in being mixed. He responded quickly by saying thank you and what is your question.
Commending him on being mixed?
We agree that the President referring to himself as a "mutt" was insensitive and demeaning to all who are multiracial. My wife and I believe it is just an indication that he has not truly come to terms with being multiracial.
No, we do NOT appreciate our President referring
to himself or our children as "mutts
I personally don't think a lot of people see it that way even if it may be politically incorrect. A lot of people use that term in a very lite way. An Italian girl I worked with said "we are a bunch of mutts anyway"
I think they maybe taking that a little too even insinuating that he is refering to their(our) children as mutts
3. We do not feel that multiracial people should be limited to their
parents without regard for their grandparents,
great-grandparents or any other members of their families. It is just
not our place to decide who is or is not multiracial. We believe that if
you say you wish to identify yourself as multiracial, you are
multiracial. We are not the racial police and we do not feel anyone or
any entity should be, including the federal or state governments. We
would never tell someone who has a grandmother of a different race, for
example, that they could not be multiracial. Also, please take into
consideration that birth certificates usually do NOT carry the race of
the parents, so I do not think that would or should work.
The saddest aspect of the situation is that some thought President Obama would support abolishing forced "racial" classification, merely because of his mixed ancestry. He cannot afford to do this. He must appeal to all the people. From his viewpoint it is not a question of morality, but of expediency.
Posted: Sun 29 Mar 2009 07:35 Post subject: First Response to Eric's Father
Quote:
Ms. Powell, we would like to know how do you personally view someone who is biracial but identifies themselves by saying they are of one particular race/color? If they do, does it cloud the meaning and/or acceptance of the meaning of being biracial?
Quote:
Dear Prof. Jaskolski,
It is not possible for me to answer your question without putting it into a certain context. The issue is not individuals choosing a "race" in the way that "white" Americans of multiple European ancestries choose an ethnicity from among multiple possibilities (Though they have a right to do so). The focus is or should be on those "gatekeepers" of society (whatever they call themselves) who present a narrative to the public designed to convince them that individuals who are or admit to being "part-black" are somehow legally or morally obligated to identify as "black." Note that this concern about mixed ancestry does not seem to apply to Asians or American Indian "blood" because the elites or those groups have no interest in promoting forced hypodescent. In contrast, "black" elites tend to be fanatical supporters of promoting the illusion that the "one drop" myth is legally and morally necessary. That's why it was the NAACP, not "white" racists who were the main enemies of the proposed Multiracial category for the census.
People like President Obama, Halle Berry, Colin Powell, etc. first claimed that they had "no choice" but to be "black" because of their looks. I've seen plenty of Hispanics and Arabs who have the same "look," haven't you? Those Hispanics and Arabs feel no need to call themselves "black." If the "one drop" rule is enforced by "society," why aren't they "black"? When the likes of Obama, Berry, etc. were challenged, they whined that their "choice" was being taken away from them. Gregory Howard Williams looks "pure white," and he used to claim that he had "no choice" but to call himself "black" based on partial "black blood." When HE was challenged, he also whined that they "choice" he supposedly had was being taken from him. Does anyone else notice a con game here?
In "Interracial Voice," Charles Michael Byrd and I spent a lot of time defending Anatole Broyard (who has been denounced by American black elites as "passing for white" after his death) and denouncing Gregory Howard Williams. Why? Do you know people who claim American Indian ancestry but identify as "white"? Nearly everyone does. White-identified Americans freely and proudly claim American Indian ancestry precisely because it does not affect their whiteness; it is not stigmatizing. "Black blood" should be the same as American Indian "blood." Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (the black Harvard professor who first denounced Anatole Broyard as a "black" who was merely "passing for white") and other "black" elites promote the idea that European ancestry is too damn good for a person "tainted" with "black blood" to claim. They then have the nerve to "pass" that racist view as the anti-racist position. Come on!
In Obama's autobiography, he obviously took great pains to construct a "black American" identity for himself. He was born and reared in Hawaii, not Mississippi. In contrast to "Imitation of Life," his primary caretakers were white, not black. Hawaii was never part of the white/black "color line." The issue here is not the individual "choice" of Obama but the fact that he and other "mulatto members of the black elite" have taken great pains to deny racial choices of identity to others. Obama should AT LEAST say that, while he chose to be "black," others can choose to be biracial, Hapa, white or whatever they please.
Posted: Tue 31 Mar 2009 17:10 Post subject: Birth certifcate
Famu wrote:
Quote:
It merely should go to the person's immediate race of their mother and father on the birth certificate.
Your race is on your birth certificate? LOL, I obviously missed out.
Quote:
At the very least, they wanted Woods--- the son of a black man and Asian woman
And the thing I always find so funny about this, is that Tiger Woods is NOT the son of a black man and an Asian woman. He's the son of a black-identified man and an Asian-identified woman.
If this biracial person can simplify the races of Tiger Woods' parents without so much as an afterthought, I don't understand why we can't do it for ourselves.
I want the multiracial movement to be successful because it is positive and gives multiracial people who feel as if they are being forced to chose a race a place to go and find support. For example, my brother is having a son who with a girl who is biracial. I believe that child should be able to chose his ethnicity with no hassle and no fear.
Quote:
especially the A-A political leadership, strongly believe that involuntary "racial" classification is necessary to fight "racism."
Really? Could you point me to some articles/books/research that supports this claim? I'm genuinely interested.
Yes, I checked on my birth certificate and it has the race of my parents. I further checked my wife's birth certificate and it has the race listed of her parents. The race is not shown on our son's birth certificate.
Posted: Tue 31 Mar 2009 17:56 Post subject: Re: Birth certifcate
Challenge_the_status_quo wrote:
I checked on my birth certificate and it has the race of my parents. I further checked my wife's birth certificate and it has the race listed of her parents. The race is not shown on our son's birth certificate.
Each state (and in some states, each county) makes up their own rules about what goes on birth certificates. Fifty years ago, it was common for birth certificates to list the "races" of both parents and also of the child. Starting with 1955-65 the civil rights movement, many jurisdictions began leaving off the "race" of the child, although retaining those of the parents. I always thought that it was because they figured that the kid would eventually make up his/her own mind. And, then, starting about 15 years ago, some jurisdictions began leaving off "race" entirely. This would make a good research term paper topic, if anyone is interested.
I checked on my birth certificate and it has the race of my parents. I further checked my wife's birth certificate and it has the race listed of her parents. The race is not shown on our son's birth certificate.
Each state (and in some states, each county) makes up their own rules about what goes on birth certificates. Fifty years ago, it was common for birth certificates to list the "races" of both parents and also of the child. Starting with 1955-65 the civil rights movement, many jurisdictions began leaving off the "race" of the child, although retaining those of the parents. I always thought that it was because they figured that the kid would eventually make up his/her own mind. And, then, starting about 15 years ago, some jurisdictions began leaving off "race" entirely. This would make a good research term paper topic, if anyone is interested.
Yeah. On my mom's birth certificate, it has her parents listed as "negro" but no race for her. And then on my birth certificate, there is nothing listed, lol.
Back in the day in LA, the hospital you were born at determined your race. For instance, I know of Creole ('Black'/Mixed) families in LA who had 'White' on their BC because they were born at the 'White' Hospital. Even siblings (same parents) could have various racial ID's due to this.
Also, I know of Creole families (on the black side) in small towns who have different races (same parents) because of what regional hospital they were born (even in the 1960s). Those born at the parish (i.e. county) hospital had 'Negro', but siblings born at the local hospital had Other.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
