Posted: Mon 06 Apr 2009 22:41 Post subject: Hypocrites
Why is the 'one-drop rule' held to high esteem by many african-americans when back in the days of slavery it was viewed by african-americans as being discriminatory and racist?
Posted: Mon 06 Apr 2009 23:12 Post subject: Re: Hypocrites
Challenge_the_status_quo wrote:
Why is the 'one-drop rule' held to high esteem by many african-americans when back in the days of slavery it was viewed by african-americans as being discriminatory and racist?
The ODR was first embraced by the leaders of the A-A ethnopolitical community in the 1830s for the same reason that they embrace it today--it enhances group solidarity. I do not know of any historical period when the ODR was resisted or actually seen as discriminatory and racist by Black leadership. Of course, Black leaders often claim that racist Whites invented the ODR. And they usually connect it with slavery somehow. But then they go on to demand and enforce it themselves in order to maintain loyalty within the group.
For a good example of this counter-intuitive (and in my opinion, irrational) rhetoric, see Christine Hickman's The Devil and the One-Drop Rule.
I agree with Eric J.'s letter, Ms. Graham's letter ,and Dr.Sweet's letter. The post is too long to quote.
Now, the usual...
Eric J. looks like a Black American to me. I would take him as BlackAmerican. He looks like any and every other typical Black Creole American I have ever seen. He looks like my two brothers, cousins and other relatives.
Also, the biracial thing is really old. It is old in that it is the same old thing of people posting how hard it was for them to grow up between both worlds,and how they felt so special ,odd,inferior, etc. It is old in that they look no different from people who are descendents of parents,grandparents,etc. of people who were mixed and are still marrying and having children mixed looking. It is in the genes. Hundreds of years of gene mixing is why two Black Americans, ones I know,have lil white skinned, light hazel,blue,grey,green eyed,straight haired or pretty straight-curly hair,as we say here, kids. Some people just stay BlackAmerican and others just go as White. I am fine with whatever ones decison is. Be human. Be comfortable inyour skin and whatever others say,think, does not define you.
The only thing I HATE and total disagree with is the term AfricanAmerican.That is just so stupid. Jessa Jackass-son and other racists Blacks pushed that in the 80's and it seems to be here to stay. It is totally inaccurate too calling historical figures AfricaAmerican like Mohter Henritte Delille who is up for sainthood. She was NOT AfricaAmerican. She was Free Woman of color who looked White American and was expected in her society to be so and live a splendid life of a kept woman. The hisotry there is very interesting and true. Why rewrite and make it something it was not.I do not call myself a damn AfricaAmerican. I scratch that out on forms and write BlackAmerican or check other. I cannot stop others from using that term. I cannot stop anyone from putting that label on something they complete onme,but I can scratch it off when I get a chance and that is all. I do not let it define me . What can you do. I think people like Eric J. are in the same situation in that they cannot control what others think. Stop trying to fight what you can't and live your life.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Sun 10 May 2009 18:44 Post subject:
Creole GAL wrote:
As usual, I post saying my usual thing....
I agree with Eric J.'s letter, Ms. Graham's letter ,and Dr.Sweet's letter. The post is too long to quote.
Now, the usual...
Eric J. looks like a Black American to me. I would take him as BlackAmerican. He looks like any and every other typical Black Creole American I have ever seen. He looks like my two brothers, cousins and other relatives.
Also, the biracial thing is really old. It is old in that it is the same old thing of people posting how hard it was for them to grow up between both worlds,and how they felt so special ,odd,inferior, etc. It is old in that they look no different from people who are descendents of parents,grandparents,etc. of people who were mixed and are still marrying and having children mixed looking. It is in the genes. Hundreds of years of gene mixing is why two Black Americans, ones I know,have lil white skinned, light hazel,blue,grey,green eyed,straight haired or pretty straight-curly hair,as we say here, kids. Some people just stay BlackAmerican and others just go as White. I am fine with whatever ones decison is. Be human. Be comfortable inyour skin and whatever others say,think, does not define you.
Frankly, I'm getting sick and tired this garbage that you keep posting. It seems that EVERY mulatto, unless they can pass for white, looks "black" to you - or so you say. If this isn't one-dropping, I don't know what is.
I am not going to fight with you or insult you back. I know I always say the same thing. I said that. Don't read my posts or reply if it disgusts you so much. I have not posted in ages anyway. It is my opinion in the people I know and see who look Black to me, typical Creole Black, and Eric J. fits the bill too. Here in N.O., LA, people would take him as BlackAmerican. I always say that about people just to prove that ones looks,beauty or racial makeup really is in the eye of the beholder. It is hard to see each other,know the region where we all are coming from and the environments that we grew up in from posting on a message board. If I saw you, I might say you are Black American to me, mixed,whatever and if you saw me,you might say the same thing.
I really am more sypathetic to Eric J. and other people like him. There is a point where you let go of what you cannot control,others opinions of what you look like and what are you, and just be. As for me, yeah, I went through it. Briefly. Very briefly and I was young like in high school.
Quote from Famu...
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.
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.
End quote from Famu.
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.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
8)
Mine has Negro on it. A cousin, same age, has White on hers. The mother looked 100% White and the father looked White /Mexican. She was born in another state.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Mon 11 May 2009 02:21 Post subject:
Creole GAL wrote:
Mine has Negro on it. A cousin, same age, has White on hers. The mother looked 100% White and the father looked White /Mexican. She was born in another state.
So, in your eyes, it's possible to like white/Mexican, but NOT white/black? Pretending as though you can't, in most cases, tell a mulatto from a black person, when you know damned well you can is INDEED one-dropping.
Posted: Sat 16 May 2009 14:05 Post subject: Re: Birth certifcate
fwsweet wrote:
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.
After reading this the other day, the first thing that I had to do was go and check my son's birth certificate. I really hadn't thought about it back when we filled out the forms at the hospital when he was born (we live in NYC and our son was born here). I would prefer no information be kept on him pertaining to "race." He's a child and it is important to me to protect the right of my son to make his own determinations about his identify as he matures.
Fortunately, I found no nonsense about any supposed "race" anywhere on his birth certificate or on any of the photocopies that I had made of the forms that we filled out. I was, however, discussing this with my wife yesterday and we both vaguely remember her having to put a "race" for herself on the hospital admission forms. We remember this because we joked about it at the time, as a temporary attempt at relief during her labor, and we remember that she ended up checking the "other" box and writing in something like "mixed" or "human" for herself. I wonder if this information is being kept in a file about my son somewhere.
Interestingly, any mention of "race" is also absent from my birth certificate (I was born in LA in the early 70's). I have checked a variety of boxes over the years, depending on the choices, so I'm not sure what would come up if an intelligence file were to surface.
Posted: Sat 16 May 2009 14:36 Post subject: Re: Birth certifcate
erasmusinfinity wrote:
we both vaguely remember her having to put a "race" for herself on the hospital admission forms. ... I wonder if this information is being kept in a file about my son somewhere.
It may be on file somewhere about your wife, but I doubt that it would have anything to do with your son's records. The notion of hypodescent (that a child MUST inherit the race of the lower-race-status parent) does not apply to any "races" except the U.S. B/W dichotomy. For example, more than half of first-generation Japanese/Euro mixed individuals self-identify (and are socially identified) as White. It would be cumbersome and costly to connect "race" of a child with that of a parent only for African Americans.
Of course, if the U.S. were to launch another "racial" pogrom, like the Jim Crow terror or the internment of U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry in WW-II, then all bets are off and every record (especially census records) would be scrutinized for people trying to "pass."
Posted: Sat 16 May 2009 14:59 Post subject: Re: Birth certifcate
fwsweet wrote:
The notion of hypodescent (that a child MUST inherit the race of the lower-race-status parent) does not apply to any "races" except the U.S. B/W dichotomy.
Is "black" supposed to apply to my son, then, if one or both of his parents have been listed as "black" anywhere prior? Will we be legally regarded as dishonest if we don't put "black" on forms for him, or is that in the past?
I am currently about midway through section two of The Legal History of The Colorline, and am amazed by the variety of thick-skulled routines that courts have gone through, historically, in attempts to determine the "race" of particular individuals.
Posted: Sat 16 May 2009 15:22 Post subject: Re: Birth certifcate
erasmusinfinity wrote:
Is "black" supposed to apply to my son, then, if one or both of his parents have been listed as "black" anywhere prior? Will we be legally regarded as dishonest if we don't put "black" on forms for him, or is that in the past?
It is in the past.
You will always bump into the odd-ball bureaucrat out there (usually in a school office) who will enforce the one-drop rule within the little pond where they wield power.
But at a judicial level, no court in the U.S. would tolerate such an accusation today. Indeed, one Missouri conviction of two robber/murderers was overturned merely because the trial judge used the words "one-drop rule" in a Batson-hearing reference to 19th century customs. The Supreme Court of Missouri said that use of those words showed "insensitivity" by the trial judge and overturned the jury's conviction.
The reverse, on the other hand, is often the case. If your son ever tries to claim affirmative action benefits based on Blackness and is challenged in court, the result will depend on support by local A-A community leaders (politicians, teachers, ministers). If they testify that he is not a member of the local A-A community, he can be convicted of criminal fraud, no matter what he looks like, no matter his DNA admixture, no matter how his parents self-identified, indeed no matter how he self-identifies.
erasmusinfinity wrote:
am amazed by the variety of thick-skulled routines that courts have gone through, historically, in attempts to determine the "race" of particular individuals.
It continues today. Every year sees federal and state court trials where lawyers, judges, and juries grapple with "racially" classifying someone. For example, a famous Denny's restaurant case of workplace discrimination pivoted on whether a light-brown A-A manager who constantly ridiculed and used the "n" word towards a dark-brown A-A employee was of the same "race" as the employee, for purposes of EEOC regulations.
Posted: Sat 16 May 2009 19:54 Post subject: Re: Birth certifcate
fwsweet wrote:
If your son ever tries to claim affirmative action benefits based on Blackness and is challenged in court, the result will depend on support by local A-A community leaders (politicians, teachers, ministers). If they testify that he is not a member of the local A-A community, he can be convicted of criminal fraud, no matter what he looks like, no matter his DNA admixture, no matter how his parents self-identified, indeed no matter how he self-identifies.
I suppose that my next concern would be that of denying him access to the A-A community if he so sees fit to explore and/or embrace that identity. As I said before, I do not wish to impose an identity upon him and would prefer to encourage him to explore his own identify as he sees fit. And I wouldn't like to close off options for him through my choices and actions.
But then again, if A-A community leaders have such god like powers to assign and revoke "black" credentials at whim then I don't suppose his birth certificate or school forms will make much of a difference anyhow. The main thing, in that case, is to make sure that we keep around at least one A-A friend with some clout in "the community."
Posted: Sat 16 May 2009 21:35 Post subject: Re: Birth certifcate
erasmusinfinity wrote:
I suppose that my next concern would be that of denying him access to the A-A community if he so sees fit to explore and/or embrace that identity. As I said before, I do not wish to impose an identity upon him and would prefer to encourage him to explore his own identify as he sees fit. And I wouldn't like to close off options for him through my choices and actions.
But then again, if A-A community leaders have such god like powers to assign and revoke "black" credentials at whim then I don't suppose his birth certificate or school forms will make much of a difference anyhow. The main thing, in that case, is to make sure that we keep around at least one A-A friend with some clout in "the community."
I do not think that it would be a problem unless he applies for some sort of government entitlement and is seen as doing so for personal gain.
It is not really the fault of local community leaders that they are put in such a position. The basic problem is that courts must reflect the mores of society as a whole.
Over the past 15 years, mainstream (White) society has trended towards viewing Blackness as membership in an ethnic community, and away from viewing it as something innate or genetic. (The fashionable catchphrase in the halls of power is, "race is a social construct.") At the same time, the U.S. electorate wants to grant A-As special race-based entitlements, apparently to make up for the Jim Crow period or slavery.
And so U.S. courts are tasked with deciding who can legitimately claim "minority" entitlements, but doing so on the basis of community membership, not genetics. They have no alternative but to lay the burden on local community leaders.
I agree that the end result is a senseless fertile ground for graft, corruption, and bribery. But community leaders did not ask for the power to grant or withhold government rewards, and the courts invented neither the laws granting "race-based" entitlements, nor the social perception of "race" as membership in a group. It is just one one of those quirky unintended results by well-meaning people who fail to think things through.
The U.S. is the only industrialized nation in the Western world where the state classifies its own citizens by "race" in order to treat them differently. The state is the instrument of the electorate. The courts are instruments of the state. Local community leaders are instruments of the courts.
It is not really the fault of local community leaders that they are put in such a position. The basic problem is that courts must reflect the mores of society as a whole.
Yeah. You are right. It is not fair to single out A-A community leaders as the sole source of the cause. They are responding to something that is already going on... as part of a chain of responses going back, at least, to whatever point or points the one drop rule can be said to have emerged (1691 perhaps???) and developed. Although to be a leader, I think, implies some degree of responsibility.
fwsweet wrote:
Over the past 15 years, mainstream (White) society has trended towards viewing Blackness as membership in an ethnic community, and away from viewing it as something innate or genetic. (The fashionable catchphrase in the halls of power is, "race is a social construct.")
Race is a social construct, essentially, isn't it?
fwsweet wrote:
At the same time, the U.S. electorate wants to grant A-As special race-based entitlements, apparently to make up for the Jim Crow period or slavery.
Race is a social construct, essentially, isn't it?
Yes. In the same sense that wealth, crime, morality, and patriotism are social constructs. The very same individual of, say 50-50 Euro-Afro admixture is considered a member of the Black "race" if his name is John Smith but a member of the Hispanic "race" if named Juan Perez. But being a social construct does not mean that it is unimportant. The world-unique preservation of a genetic enclave of mostly Afro ancestry within a population of 99.3 percent Euro ancestry shows just how important it is.
erasmusinfinity wrote:
It seems to me that there is a contradiction.
Precisely. If "racial" membership can be turned on and off by acceptance into a group, then race-based entitlements to atone for past oppression make no sense. If race-based entitlements make sense, then racial membership must be hereditary, hence involuntary, and not a social construct at all.
Of course, if I had a nickel for every self-contradictory myth or law that society embraces I would be very wealthy indeed.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
