Do you think that the often hysterical reaction by black-identified Americans to any questioning of hypodescent or "passing" accusations is based on their belief that such questioning is synonymous with disrespect? Is it an imitation of the traditional Southern white belief that questioning the racial status quo was an insult to THEIR "honor"? Is the black American belief that they should control and claim anyone who's at least partially "black" an imitation of the traditional "white" belief that "whites" as a group should control all "nonwhites"?
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1761 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Thu 30 Apr 2009 12:27 Post subject: Re: "Honor" and violence
Powell wrote:
Do you think that the often hysterical reaction by black-identified Americans to any questioning of hypodescent or "passing" accusations is based on their belief that such questioning is synonymous with disrespect? Is it an imitation of the traditional Southern white belief that questioning the racial status quo was an insult to THEIR "honor"? Is the black American belief that they should control and claim anyone who's at least partially "black" an imitation of the traditional "white" belief that "whites" as a group should control all "nonwhites"?
You are assuming a "often hysterical reaction exists". You have provided no evidence it does so how can someone speculate about something that is subjective? What does often mean to you? What number of people out of a 100 reacting "hysterically" is often? What type of behavior is hysterical? Are we talking about mobs of people chasing folks with pitch forks and torches? Are we talking about one person out of a room full of people getting in your face and arguing with you? What age are these people? Is this nation wide or in an isolated area? When was the last time this occurred and how many people were involved, where were you, and what did they do that was "hysterical"?
Posted: Thu 30 Apr 2009 13:03 Post subject: Re: "Honor" and violence
Powell wrote:
Do you think that the [negative] reaction by black-identified Americans to any questioning of hypodescent or "passing" accusations is based on their belief that such questioning is synonymous with disrespect? Is it an imitation of the traditional Southern white belief that questioning the racial status quo was an insult to THEIR "honor"? Is the black American belief that they should control and claim anyone who's at least partially "black" an imitation of the traditional "white" belief that "whites" as a group should control all "nonwhites"?
No, I don't think so. Honor-driven violence seems connected to a sense of insult. To me, the hostility expressed towards those who have some SSA but reject an A-A self-identity seems to be driven by two other factors: group loyalty and a desire to do good.
Group loyalty results from the traditional U.S. conflation of genetics and culture. I have seldom been vilified face-to-face for denying my African roots in rejecting an A-A self-identity. (I am much too White-looking!) But it does happen online. When it happens, I get the feeling that the attacker is driven by group loyalty. In their eyes, I am genetically a member of their group but reject it nonetheless. They remind me of the way devout Muslims believe that apostates should be killed.
The desire to do good is more widespread. I have been browsing minutes of govt meetings lately and am amazed at the number of people -- well-intentioned, loving, kind-hearted, civically minded people -- who sincerely believe that society (especially the government) must compel every American to choose between Black and White on pain of prosecution. No "multiracial", no "Other", no "both," nor "in-between." Choose between Black and White or suffer the consequences. Such advocates honestly feel that a harshly enforced "racial" dichotomy is the only way to fight racism. Their catch-phrase is "When racism is gone and we reach Utopia, then we can allow people to evade their duty to choose a race. Until then, we must force people to choose between Black and White in order to fight racism."
I saw this attitude most starkly in a Census decision to eliminate the "Other" checkbox in 2010. Since 1970, Americans have been allowed to check "other" and fill in a line. The decision to end this policy was explicitly meant to force Hispanics to choose between White and Black.
Last edited by fwsweet on Thu 30 Apr 2009 15:14; edited 3 times in total
Posted: Thu 30 Apr 2009 13:10 Post subject: Re: "Honor" and violence
Dragon Horse wrote:
You are assuming a "often hysterical reaction exists". ... etc.
You are getting sidetracked, focusing on the word "hysterical" rather than on the issue raised: Is hostility towards people with SSA but who reject A-A self-identity driven by a sense of insult to honor?
Well, from my personal experience as a bi-racial person of ambiguous appearance (I still get asked my race) with visual AA cues (many assume I identify as AA), I would say maybe <50% of AAs who assume I am merely AA, are offended at the suggestion that I am not AA. (That is until I explain my background.) Some are offended, others don't care.
For WAs, they may be less openly honest about such things, so based upon their reaction I would say maybe <33%. I would also say it has been my experience for AAs to be more personally offended and would question me moreso about this choice (not soley AA). Maybe WA's are more polite or don't care or have less of a stake..... I just know they visably react LESS than AAs when I say I am mixed/bi-racial, or don't answer soley to the AA label.
Now, this just happended to me this week. During a conversation with an AA in a casual professional setting, this person who doesn't know me nor my background, said out of the blue and off-topic: "You're AA right?" When I was silent, his eyes expressed his suprised and he asked me several more times.... The Whites in the room had no expression/little reaction.... I think WAs either don't care or assume its a AA issue, lol. I got the feeling the AAs were embarrassed by the person who asked this question and the WA's had no opinion other than to think it was inappropriate. LOL!
From my (your?) personal experience as a bi-racial person would you say that the ~50% of blacks who have some issue with your identity become "hysterical"?
No, I used the word offended. However, I've had a few hysterical ones in my day (even when I was silent about race) . This happended moreso when I was younger (under 20), from both older and young AAs, male and female. I've been verbally needled/bothered for either being different (most recent this week) or stating I was bi-racial (last year) from people who thought they KNEW what is BEST for ME.
Yes, living in America it would often be easier to just say I am Black (and have done so before), but one reason why I am often pro-mixed race is because all of these people (Black and White Americans mostly) who feel that is it their duty or responsibility to TELL me, even to the point of violent confrontation, who they think I OUGHT TO BE. As if my personal choices, feelings, heritage, experience don't matter!
It amazes me how rude and personal this can get (akin to a stranger asking a pregnant woman when she's due). I didn't ask nor need their opinion, I know the history of this country better than most and do understand why things are the way they are. I am not pro-mixed because I think I am better than AAs, or have shame over slavery, crime, stereotypes, enbarassment, or racism, no I a pro-mixed because it is the TRUTH! It is what I AM.
would you say that the ~50% of blacks who have some issue with your identity become "hysterical"?
You are obfuscating. The issue is what drives or motivates such hostility. If you want to talk about word usage ("hysterical") or pursue the numerical fraction of the A-A population that is hostile to people of slight SSA who reject an A-A identity, I would be happy to split off a thread on either topic.
Let us assume that only one A-A in a hundred is openly hostile to people of mixed ancestry who reject an A-A identity. Would you consider yourself such a one? If so, perhaps you could tell your motivation for your hostility, even if it is not shared by most A-As. Do you feel that such rejection insults your honor? Do you consider it racial treason or disloyalty? Do you think that the rejection foments racism? Or do you feel some other motivation entirely?
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1761 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 01 May 2009 00:35 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
would you say that the ~50% of blacks who have some issue with your identity become "hysterical"?
You are obfuscating. The issue is what drives or motivates such hostility. If you want to talk about word usage ("hysterical") or pursue the numerical fraction of the A-A population that is hostile to people of slight SSA who reject an A-A identity, I would be happy to split off a thread on either topic.
Let us assume that only one A-A in a hundred is openly hostile to people of mixed ancestry who reject an A-A identity. Would you consider yourself such a one? If so, perhaps you could tell your motivation for your hostility, even if it is not shared by most A-As. Do you feel that such rejection insults your honor? Do you consider it racial treason or disloyalty? Do you think that the rejection foments racism? Or do you feel some other motivation entirely?
Lol. Seriously??
Okay I can see it is time for some straight talk.
I think you already know the answer to this, if you don't then you haven't been paying attention because I made this clear several times on this board. Oh you think
I'm attacking Powell for rejecting black identity or Melanie? Is that it? It has to be something, because I could just tell you to find your answer in your inbox, as I've already stated this a few weeks ago, and I know you are not a dumb man and I don believe you suffer from alzheimers.
For newer people to the board:
No I don't consider myself "such a one". I don't have a motivation as I don't act hostile to those just due to them "rejecting a black identity". I could care less, as I told you I have close family that do this and it has never been an issue and I thought I explained this to you in "private message". I don't really disagree with Melanie that some blacks do this. I know they do, I have seen it, but my disagreement with Powell is that she feels it is a common thing and black people use certain names a lot and act a certain way as if it is common and most black people do this.
I find Melanie's situation much more believable. Powell's situation probably was true in 1975.
"Honor" is a silly primitive notion to me, which I have never cared about.
"Racial Treason" is bizarre seeing as I don't believe "biological race" exists and I don't believe "social race" should exist, another primitive throwback based on nonsense.
If the rejection "foments racism" or not depends how the person is doing it. There can be people like the example above from our member, who reject a black identity in a way I consider positive and there can be those who do so do to reasons that are negative. That really depends on the person, situation, and how they are outwardly expressing themselves.
I can use the example of my marriage to stand in place of "racial identity".
I am married to an East Asian woman and I'm an African American male. Now I could have the motive of marrying my wife just because I might secretly hate black women, maybe I don't want my kids to be dark and "nappy headed", etc. (the usual stereotypes). I can express this by always talking badly about black women for no apparent reason, comparing my wife to black women (her the positive and black women the negative) any chance I get, when around black women, I can always point out thing about my wife I know many black women would be upset by (her hair length, light skin, slim build, etc).
Or I could do, what I do everyday. I don't bring up issues of my wife's race unless it is relevant to a conversation or someone questions me. I do speak about my wife's nationality as how it affects our eating habits out home, language usage, her understanding of American comedies, etc. I rarely talk about her "race" or do any of the things above.
Now does that means I don't hold the first set of "negative motives"? No, you can never be 100% sure of what people are thinking, but I"m pretty sure that if I did the negative things I describe above chances are I do would hold those motives and I'm making it clear, indirectly, what I think and believe. In my experience this is what vindictive cowards do to get away with things they know are wrong or they will be punished for.
The same can be true of people "rejecting black identity". In my experience most of these people are positive in their identity such as Melanie, and not negative like others...
So I can't just make a determination based on your abstract question, I would judge that from case to case and usually I just give people the benefit of the doubt. I have never got in anyone's face about their choice of identity, because in the end it is their choice and if I feel the person is ignorant and/or self hating that is their problem not mine. I just avoid associating with them. Why waste time arguing with someone so ignorant? Seriously...? The only time I have argued with people like this is not due to their identity, but due to them lying about black people (think of the situation above I mentioned about publicly degrading black women, I have got into with more than one black man who made these type of statements in my presence). Why? Not due to notions of classical honor.
Honor :
Quote:
1 a: good name or public esteem : reputation b: a showing of usually merited respect : recognition <pay>2: privilege <had>3: a person of superior standing —now used especially as a title for a holder of high office <if>4: one whose worth brings respect or fame : credit <an>
No it is simple and rational. It is not about "racial honor". It is far more pragmatic and base.
I have a mother, I have aunts, I have female cousins, etc.
They are treated as "black women" if they want to be are not by the larger society.
Due to this people who spread negative stereotypes about black women, basically lies about people are lying about my family and friends in ways that can hurt them socially, economically, etc. This is not about "good name" in the classic sense of "I don't want people thinking negatively about me due to my family or thinking I'm a bad person, blah blah".
This is serious cause and effect.
So I take issue with these people.
I don't, never have, and never will take issue with someone choosing an identity or a mate. I take issue with liars and defamers who hurt other people when it is unnecessary to do so. If my opinion those people would fine their "identity" choice much better received if they refrain from projecting their "issues". For those who are being attacked for no apparent reason, as Melanie, I feel sorry for them and if someone did that in front of me, I would likely defend her, because that is also uncalled for and simply rude.
Are we understood or do I have to bookmark this so I can copy and paste it into a thread against when you ask something similar in 2 months or 6 months, etc.? Are we going to discuss this Ad infinitum or until you find some way to figure out how to suspend me for not accepting defamation as part of "finding one's identity"?
Not interested, I've already used this site as a timesink too much today. I have a paper due tonight. I'm a classic procrastinator. Ciao.
Are we understood or do I have to bookmark this so I can copy and paste it into a thread against when you ask something similar in 2 months or 6 months, etc.?
Those are two different questions. Yes, I understand you (at least I think I do). And, yes, it is probably a good idea to keep handy the URL of this thread because it will probably come up again.
Dragon Horse wrote:
Are we going to discuss this Ad infinitum or until you find some way to figure out how to suspend me for not accepting defamation as part of "finding one's identity"?
Again, two different questions. No, I hope not ad infinitum. And, no, I do not want to suspend you.
I am honestly curious as to what motivates people to tell others how to self-identify. And the situation that seems to come up over and over again is an A-A becoming enraged or hostile towards someone of mixed ancestry who rejects an A-A self-identity.
I am mildly (if at all) curious as to what fraction of the A-A population feels this way. But I am intensely curious as to what drives those who do. I thought that you might have some insight, since you sometimes come across thus to my eyes. Nevertheless, if you have no special first-person insight into this phenomenon, then you are not as informative as I had hoped. I am disappointed, but let us move on.
And so the question still stands. Precisely what motivates those A-As who become enraged and/or hostile towards people of mixed heritage who reject an A-A self-identity?
What motivates those A-As who become enraged and/or hostile towards people of mixed heritage who reject an A-A self-identity?
Fear.
Fear is the root of most if not all negative emotions and hostile behaviors (well at least I would argue that). Your question, as I re-interpret it, is what are AAs who become enraged and/or hostile towards people of mixed heritage who reject an AA self-identity afraid of?
I could categorize these fears based on expressions I have seen or heard about, but I think it comes down to this: Generally, being on the Black side of the color line has sentenced one to a limited life; to limited choices, to unfulfilled potential, to a way of life that fails in the pursuit of personal liberty and even happiness. DISCLAIMER: Millions of Black people have, even in the darkest days of being victimized by organized criminals and terrorists sanctioned by their government, succeeded, thrived, fulfilled their potential, risen above, etc. etc. I'd be the first to bring this up. BUT - the type of person you are asking about, the type of people who believes that the way another person identifies will affect them personally (to me, very similar to the people who believe same-sex marriage will somehow invalidate their own marriages), wholeheartedly believe in the permanent and unchanging limitations of being Black. They are trapped, first by the truth of continued inequality, next by the nebulous yet carefully nurtured perceptions of white racism, and finally by the prescriptions in their communities that dictate what a Black person should think, feel and act like. Whereas many Black people can bracket all of that and see reality, or, if reality really is that bad, soldier on and never surrender, these people lack the personal tools to do either. Since they see life as a Black person as a life that is not free, they cannot comprehend that a Black person (defined, invoking the ODR, as a person assigned to the Black side due to known African ancestry of any proportion) might perceive choices. The fear comes with the cognitive dissonance - if this person believes he or she is somehow free despite the "obvious" limitations, maybe what is believed about these limitations isn't true. And, if it isn't true, maybe the believer has squandered opportunities that s/he did not acknowledge (or realize) that s/he had. That realization is not something such people are psychologically prepared to embrace. So, the response is to attack the perceived source of the dissonance - the Black person who dares to make a different choice.
This way of thinking likely doesn't make me popular with some folks, but I don't think this is about colorism, envy, hatred, or perceived ownership of mixed people. Those are symptoms, they are not the disease. At the root, this is about the fundamental cultural beliefs that we share in this society, across ethnic groups, about how being cast to the Black side of the color line has challenged the personal freedom of those implicated. While many groups have lobbied to become White and have successfully avoided it (i.e., Jews and Irish), or have alternate racial paradigms that allow them to reject the USAmerican system (i.e., Latinos), people who "ought to" fall under the jurisdiction of the ODR are understood to be limited by their African ancestry and/or appearance. It's why any "Black" person who "takes liberties" - speaks differently, thinks differently, marries or dates whomever s/he pleases, doesn't feel or act inferior, doesn't choose a Black identity, etc. etc. will catch hell from these people.
I think these people are a dying breed and this mentality is weakening, which is why I also bristle at the notion that this behavior is representative of most Black people.
...if this person believes he or she is somehow free despite the "obvious" limitations, maybe what is believed about these limitations isn't true. And, if it isn't true, maybe the believer has squandered opportunities that s/he did not acknowledge (or realize) that s/he had. That realization is not something such people are psychologically prepared to embrace. So, the response is to attack the perceived source of the dissonance - the Black person who dares to make a different choice.
Please forgive me if I seem skeptical. Like everyone else, I am trapped by my upbringing. Although I have spend most of my life in Anglo-American society, my formative years were in PR. I am mystified by U.S. notions of "race" but I am comfortable with colorism. I deplore colorism, of course, as does any thoughtful Puerto Rican. But I am familiar with it and it seems "normal," even though I agree that it is unjust.
Your thesis seems testable. You suggest that hostility springs from cognitive dissonance of opportunities lost; that the attacker sees someone who has succeeded by breaking free of the A-A label, and cannot face that her own adherence to that label has hindered her own life. Your hypothesis would predict two things.
First, attackers should tend to be White-looking (or at least ambiguous-looking). This is because (again, from my background) someone of overwhelming African appearance could not have improved her lot merely by switching labels. The opportunity would never have arisen, so could never have been seized, so failing to seize it could not produce subconscious regret and consequent cognitive dissonance. Is this the case? Is it mainly so-called "light-skinned Blacks" who are hostile towards people of mixed heritage that reject an A-A self-identity?
Second, mixed people who reject an A-A identity should tend to be more successful than those who publicly embrace it. If "rejectors" turn out to be less successful (or no more successful) than comparable-looking people who identify as A-A, then rational self-interest would lead the latter to say with relief, "Look at that unfortunate! Thank God I stayed Black!" Black-identified people of mixed appearance would pity those who rejected an A-A identity, rather than resent them. Is this the case? Are ambiguous-looking people who reject an A-A self-identity more successful than those who embrace it?
As a publisher of books on the changing legalities of U.S. "racial" classification, I am particularly sensitive to the second point. For example, Amazon.com has threatened to stop listing our books because A.D. is one of our authors. In contrast, Bliss Broyard, G.H. Williams, and A. Piper, are White-looking people who make a good living by passing for Black.
Please forgive me if I seem skeptical. Like everyone else, I am trapped by my upbringing.
Is that how you really feel about your upbringing? That it limits you? Do you see being raised PR as a limitation (a negative one) that holds you back?
To clarify, my POV should not be likened to the notion that we are bound by our experiences or that we cannot change fundamental facts about our upbringing. It seems to me that is what you are really saying here. Is that correct?
fwsweet wrote:
Although I have spend most of my life in Anglo-American society, my formative years were in PR. I am mystified by U.S. notions of "race" but I am comfortable with colorism. I deplore colorism, of course, as does any thoughtful Puerto Rican. But I am familiar with it and it seems "normal," even though I agree that it is unjust.
I'd like to see whether colorism or skin color is related to this behavior, but I don't believe that it is. Probably because I have seen this reaction in AAs across the phenotype spectrum. And, once upon a time, this hostile reaction was quite common among Whites as well but that's another story.
fwsweet wrote:
Your hypothesis would predict two things.
First, attackers should tend to be White-looking (or at least ambiguous-looking). This is because (again, from my background) someone of overwhelming African appearance could not have improved her lot merely by switching labels. The opportunity would never have arisen, so could never have been seized, so failing to seize it could not produce subconscious regret and consequent cognitive dissonance. Is this the case? Is it mainly so-called "light-skinned Blacks" who are hostile towards people of mixed heritage that reject an A-A self-identity?
I disagree. "Improving one's lot" in what way? Economically? Socially? By changing one's racial identification? In the 20s, my darkskinned, African-looking g-grandfather was a relatively wealthy landowner in Texas. I don't know if he was a former slave or the child of slaves, but I know that he was attacked from both sides of the color line, for what appears to be little other reason than succeeding as a "Black man" in an environment where such success was actively discouraged or denied.
fwsweet wrote:
Second, mixed people who reject an A-A identity should tend to be more successful than those who publicly embrace it. If "rejectors" turn out to be less successful (or no more successful) than comparable-looking people who identify as A-A, then rational self-interest would lead the latter to say with relief, "Look at that unfortunate! Thank God I stayed Black!" Black-identified people of mixed appearance would pity those who rejected an A-A identity, rather than resent them. Is this the case? Are ambiguous-looking people who reject an A-A self-identity more successful than those who embrace it?
I don't get how this tests the hypothesis if the contention is that a belief/fear that Blacks are not free to live as they choose is the reason why one behaves with hostility towards "Blacks" who bring about cognitive dissonance. Can you explain?
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1761 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 01 May 2009 14:51 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Are we understood or do I have to bookmark this so I can copy and paste it into a thread against when you ask something similar in 2 months or 6 months, etc.?
Those are two different questions. Yes, I understand you (at least I think I do). And, yes, it is probably a good idea to keep handy the URL of this thread because it will probably come up again.
Dragon Horse wrote:
Are we going to discuss this Ad infinitum or until you find some way to figure out how to suspend me for not accepting defamation as part of "finding one's identity"?
Again, two different questions. No, I hope not ad infinitum. And, no, I do not want to suspend you.
I am honestly curious as to what motivates people to tell others how to self-identify. And the situation that seems to come up over and over again is an A-A becoming enraged or hostile towards someone of mixed ancestry who rejects an A-A self-identity.
I am mildly (if at all) curious as to what fraction of the A-A population feels this way. But I am intensely curious as to what drives those who do. I thought that you might have some insight, since you sometimes come across thus to my eyes. Nevertheless, if you have no special first-person insight into this phenomenon, then you are not as informative as I had hoped. I am disappointed, but let us move on.
And so the question still stands. Precisely what motivates those A-As who become enraged and/or hostile towards people of mixed heritage who reject an A-A self-identity?
Please forgive my defensiveness, but I want to make sure this is understood.
It is hard for me to have a first person insight into this problem because I honestly don't think this way and have a hard time understanding people who do, although as I said, I have witnessed it.
I think, at least in my experience, the people tend to be older (over 40 at least) and often female (referring to people who become upset by someone's choice). To me this makes sense, as these people are usually the folks in the community who have suffered the most due to issues of racialism. As far as skin color, I have seen light and dark skin blacks hold these negative feelings toward people who reject black identities. I have not noticed a difference.
For the most part, I agree with sagascend.
If you want to test your hypothesis, since most Americans end up in the same social class as their parents you could look at black males or females who have mixed race children who reject a black identity and measure the average income and education. If it is statistically higher than the national average for mono-racial parents and children then you have your answer.
Frank I have a general question: How would you construct a test for the presence of a belief? I have to admit I'm getting a little lost because it seems we are moving towards a test to verify economic or social differences based on self-identification. I don't understand how that would ascertain whether a person would be motivated by hostility. It might confirm which people are likely to experience hostility though.
Is that how you really feel about your upbringing? That it limits you? Do you see being raised PR as a limitation (a negative one) that holds you back?
Not at all. I was merely explaining why I find colorism easier to grasp.
sagascend wrote:
I have seen this reaction in AAs across the phenotype spectrum.
In that case, I doubt that part of your hypothesis (dealing with a sense of regret for lost opportunities) is the complete explanation.
sagascend wrote:
I don't get how this tests the hypothesis if the contention is that a belief/fear that Blacks are not free to live as they choose is the reason why one behaves with hostility towards "Blacks" who bring about cognitive dissonance. Can you explain?
Sure. What I doubt is not that lack of "White privilege" (defined elsewhere) is the source of Black rage or resentment. I doubt any anyone would argue with that part of your thesis. What I question is the targeting of mixed folks who reject A-A identity (rather than the obvious target – White folks) because of a sense of lost opportunity.
Dragon Horse wrote:
since most Americans end up in the same social class as their parents you could look at black males or females who have mixed race children who reject a black identity and measure the average income and education. If it is statistically higher than the national average for mono-racial parents and children then you have your answer.
Yes. That makes sense. If so, it would support the part of Saga's thesis that I doubt—that resentment is due to a sense of lost opportunity. Again, though, I cannot see why those of strongly African phenotype should see it as lost opportunity, since they never had the option of bailing out of Blackness.
That it springs from resentment of the disabilities of Blackness is unquestionable. That it should target those who are more successful makes sense (crabs in a bucket and all that). But why target mixed-ancestry people rather than White folks in general? That is the part I have trouble with.
sagascend wrote:
Frank I have a general question: How would you construct a test for the presence of a belief? I have to admit I'm getting a little lost because it seems we are moving towards a test to verify economic or social differences based on self-identification. I don't understand how that would ascertain whether a person would be motivated by hostility. It might confirm which people are likely to experience hostility though.
I do not know how to test for a belief and do not suggest such a test. I guess I am gravitating towards a position that: (1) Rage/resentment is easily explained (see Ellis Cose's book). (2) Now explain the choice of target.
What I question is the targeting of mixed folks who reject A-A identity (rather than the obvious target – White folks) because of a sense of lost opportunity.
I think the problem is that you are underestimating the impact of the ODR. I'd argue that these people are orthodox in their belief that a drop of SSA ancestry makes one "Black." In short, there is no escape from known blackness. No economic escape, no phenotype escape, no ability or label escape. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves in the mind of such individuals. I think if you constructed a questionnaire that got at different ways of asking the question you'd see that people who strongly believe that there is no escape from known blackness also strongly believe in the ODR and would be most hostile to freedom of choice (out-marriage, self-identification, labeling complexity, "un-Black" behaviors).
Amendment: To bring in the opportunity piece, in addition to reviewing economic success and self-identification as DH suggests, include questions that probe at individual success in life.
Whites are exempt because whiteness isn't burdened by these issues (in this mindset). Mixed people are not. The "traitors" to a true believer are likely worse offenders than the non-believers when it comes to adherence to a set of beliefs. They don't have an excuse for their "misbehavior" because they "ought to know better." For example, Muslim extremists likely expect non-believers to "misbehave" and have a general hostility towards them, but apostates are singled out for extreme retribution preciselty because they aren't falling in line as they should.
Whites are exempt because whiteness isn't burdened by these issues (in this mindset). Mixed people are not. The "traitors" to a true believer are likely worse offenders than the non-believers when it comes to adherence to a set of beliefs. They don't have an excuse for their "misbehavior" because they "ought to know better." For example, Muslim extremists likely expect non-believers to "misbehave" and have a general hostility towards them, but apostates are singled out for extreme retribution preciselty because they aren't falling in line as they should.
I think that's a very interesting point. Isn't this typical of group behavior in general? The traitor is more hated and feared even than the enemy, suspected and despised even by the side to which he defects. From an evolutionary perspective, that would seem to be a consequence of the importance of trust to the reproductive success of the group. Betrayal can be almost singularly harmful to group interests, since the members of a group are necessarily exempted from many of the group's defenses: they can quite literally kill you while you sleep.
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 {Posts: 17 } Location: London, UK
Posted: Fri 17 Jul 2009 20:41 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Precisely what motivates those A-As who become enraged and/or hostile towards people of mixed heritage who reject an A-A self-identity?
Self-preservation maybe?
Because AAs are a minority therefore the survival instinct is strong, They may think that if more and more mixed-heritage people reject their AA identity, after a while , there might not be an AA identity at all, which is not wrong, because alreay AAs are "quite mixed" compared to the average African in Africa.
So far AAs have succesfully strived in convincing that every American who is not "completely white looking" is AA (or foreign) and that that person should adopt an AA identity (Halle Berry is a good example)
This belief system is doomed to disappear because obviously it was born in a particular era of US history and it's a miracle that it has survived so long!
You must mean "group-preservation," not "self-preservation." I see no way that person-A's choice of self-identity can affect person-B's survival. Such loss of members can affect the survival only of person-B's group.
EraMera wrote:
Because AAs are a minority therefore the survival instinct is strong
Again, you must be talking about group survival, not the survival of any specific individual. I am not sure that a group's drive to expand or to avoid shrinking is an "instinct." As far as I know, only individual organisms can have instincts. To be honest, I am not really sure about this. Honeybee hives, termite mounds, and ants colonies seem to have group instincts. But I do not think that mammals work that way.
Still, I think that you are helping the thread boil down to a perception of threat to the group whenever someone seems to abandon the group. This may also explain why Hispanics are exempt. A Euro-looking person born to A-A parents who chooses a different self-identity is seen as someone who "is really African-American" (in JoshH's charming terminology) but is denying it, While a Puerto Rican of visible Afro ancestry was never "really" A-A to begin with.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
I just know they 
During a conversation with an AA in a casual professional setting, this person who doesn't know me nor my background, said out of the blue and off-topic: "You're AA right?" When I was silent, his eyes expressed his suprised and he asked me several more times.... The Whites in the room had no expression/little reaction.... I think WAs either don't care or assume its a AA issue, lol. I got the feeling the AAs were embarrassed by the person who asked this question and the WA's had no opinion other than to think it was inappropriate. LOL!
. This happended moreso when I was younger (under 20), from both older and young AAs, male and female. I've been verbally needled/bothered for either being different (most recent this week) or stating I was bi-racial (last year) from people who thought they KNEW what is BEST for ME.
