Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 10 Jun 2009 16:22 Post subject:
You guys are arguing nonsense, because their is no measure.
You can clear this up real quick.
What is a black person?
What is the average accepted color range of a black person?
What is the percent of nonblack African admixture that makes someone non-black?
Obviously, there will be no answer to these questions, which is the point. You are arguing over something that really is about how people identify, which is something that can't be quantified.
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 {Posts: 300 } Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posted: Wed 10 Jun 2009 21:40 Post subject:
American Heritage dictionary definition:
Quote:
Inflected forms: de·mon·ized, de·mon·iz·ing, de·mon·iz·es
1. To turn into or as if into a demon. 2. To possess by or as if by a demon. 3. To represent as evil or diabolic: wartime propaganda that demonizes the enemy.
I don't believe anything written about A. Broyard rises to the level of demonization.
Unless you mean that members of the black American ethnic group are demons, and identifying Broyard as a black American makes him a demon too.
As a practical matter, Broyard did in fact take pains to hide his African ancestry. It's quite simply impossible that this didn't affect his development as a man and a writer. This makes it a perfectly valid subject for research and analysis, like Faulkner's origins in the Deep South, and James Joyce's Irishness.
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 {Posts: 300 } Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posted: Wed 10 Jun 2009 21:55 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
You guys are arguing nonsense, because their is no measure.
You can clear this up real quick.
What is a black person?
What is the average accepted color range of a black person?
What is the percent of nonblack African admixture that makes someone non-black?
Obviously, there will be no answer to these questions, which is the point. You are arguing over something that really is about how people identify, which is something that can't be quantified.
Do people who self identify as black Americans in fact display a range of skin, eye, and hair colors? The answer is yes, as best as I've been able to determine it.
I was hoping that someone could provide evidence that self identified black Americans don't display a wide variety of phenotypes. Maybe my immediate experience is too small of a sample size. Since no one has been able to provide said evidence, I'm going to hold to my initial conclusion: "Black Americans come in all colors" is a statement of fact.
You know, these semantic arguments are interesting:
"Blacks come in all colors."
Position A: That's wrong because no 100% SSA natives have blue eyes or straight hair.
Position B: That's right because there are plenty of partially SSA people in the AA ethnic group.
Both are actually correct (although I have no idea whether the inherent genetic diversity in SS Africa could produce green, hazel or blue eyes or hair texture that is not coiled), and both are pointless to argue about.
Could someone holding Position A at least acknowledge that the underlying opposition is about how people of partially SSA ancestry/genetics identify rather than what members of the AA ethnic group actually look like?
I'd also offer that this "genetic purity" is possessed by a subset of Black people rather than the majority, and there are millions of Blacks with significant admixture who would never be acknowledged to have it because they look "too African" to racialized perceptions.
Do people who self identify as black Americans in fact display a range of skin, eye, and hair colors? The answer is yes, as best as I've been able to determine it.
"Black people come in all colors" is different from saying "Self Identified Black people come all colors". Black in the latter case is presented as a matter of a "natural fixed reality" like saying Human beings come in all shapes and sizes.
sagascend wrote:
Could someone holding Position A at least acknowledge that the underlying opposition is about how people of partially SSA ancestry/genetics identify rather than what members of the AA ethnic group actually look like?
I don't think the statement allows for self-identity, I think it's use is to identify people of different colors with known SSA as Black, rather than identifying Black as a self identified ethnic group of various skin colors.
So I'm opposed to how the phrase is used. But that's just my perception of it's usage and I know this is a scholarly forum and I should have fully formed my thoughts and posted them in issues for Biracial Americans.
I identify as a Black American and I felt that
"Black people come in all colors" was as Melani23 said a way to deny mixed-raced identity (imo genetics) and I believe that attitude was a result of the U.S color line. I've seen that attitude in my family and as a young person wasn't made to understand we had a mixed heritage.
I don't think the statement allows for self-identity, I think it's use is to identify people of different colors with known SSA as Black, rather than identifying Black as a self identified ethnic group of various skin colors.
I think it is a faulty assumption that anyone who says that intends to one-drop. Using the analogy you offered, would you assume that because someone says "humans come in all colors" that such a person is denying the existence of ethnic and national cultures that are more genetically homogenous? Wouldn't it depend on the context and their intent?
The few times I have heard a person say that "Blacks come in all colors" it is to affirm that a self-identified Black person with visual Euro admixture is part of the AA ethnic group. I've never heard this phrase used to one-drop, likely because there are much more direct statements to express the sentiment (i.e., "S/he's really Black").
I have yet to hear someone say this about native Africans. I have heard Haitians and other Carribean/Latino nationalists declare that "we come in all colors." I've even heard a couple of Jews and Arabs say this.
Posted: Tue 16 Jun 2009 05:33 Post subject: Re: "Black people come in different colors"....
AD Powell in Bold:
I, in regular type:
One might well "cringe" because the blacks and black-identified folks who do this are, in effect, validating an idea based on the assumption of their genetic inferiority.
That's correct, they are secretly afraid that they are inferior after all, that they cannot compete with Whites, and they therefore are driven to bully those with White blood into ethnic solidarity in order to avoid descending into savagery.
Can you imagine Jews using their power to keep the myth of "Aryan" and "non-Aryan" races alive?
No, because JEWS know they are superior for intelligence relative to "aryans". What's more, White Supremists and the Nazis readily admitted this. Contrast this to Black behavior. What are they scared of?
How do blacks and liberals expect to argue against the REAL racists determined to scientifically prove the super-inferiority of SSA DNA when THEY are using their power to say that SSA genes are totally different from other human DNA and super-dominant?
They only want to combat OVERT racism. Liberal Whites have long since figured out that they don't need nazism to keep black genes out of their population. What they need are convenient and oppressive social rules that demote and degrade White-Black offspring, and keep them from further polluting the White population by self-segregating with Blacks OF THEIR OWN ACCORD.
Have you noticed, the interracial marriage rate among liberal Whites doesn't seem to be at parity with demographic predictions? Now gosh, call me humble, but they just don't make sense nohow. Maybe its because they AREN'T COMMITTED TO ANTI-RACISM. They are commited to anti-oppression, which, neccessarily, involves anti-racist doctrine. But intermarriage of the class we see with Asians, Latinos, Indians, and less "inferior" groups, IS OUT OF THE QUESTION. Can anyone deny this?
All white racist doctrines (including Nazism/Aryanism) are based on the premise that the white/Aryan race must remain "pure" or it will be destroyed.
This idea doesn't die easily. Many people still think this to some degree I believe, even though they may not be cognizant of it.
The black American devotion to hypodescent also appears to be based on an inferiority complex - a fear of becoming TOO BLACK.
Absolutely. because they believe they cannot succeed without White blood. They want the mulattos to save them, and lead them to equality.
Isn't it because "race" and the SSA phenotype are at the core of "black" identity and anyone who claims to be "black" but doesn't look "black" becomes a sort of genetic freak - especially since they are often forbidden (by blacks) to identify with their white or otherwise nonblack ancestry?
And let's not forget they are also forbidden by Whites, even if only tacitly. Whites are just as guilty. They use Blacks as their pawns to do the dirty social engineering for them. Now that racism is no longer acceptable, Whites have found a convenient tool to affect the same ends.
Notice that despite all the insults thrown at Sonia Sotomayor, no one has called her "black" or called attention to her obvious African ancestry.
Because nobody has an interest in CREATING MORE SOCIAL DISTANCE between Whites and these groups. Its not their Black blood that's the problem, its the idea that TOO much Black blood will get into the White population. Therefore, some mixture with these partially Black groups isn't a problem when the Black phenotype doesn't predominate, and there's no need to ritualistically demote them to Blackness.
Posted: Tue 16 Jun 2009 13:44 Post subject: Re: "Black people come in different colors"....
ImBack wrote:
That's correct, they are secretly afraid ... [etc.]
I will say the same thing to ImBack that I said to AD and Whatareyou? in this post, above:
fwsweet wrote:
There is no doubt that many Americans conflate: (1) genetic ancestry (How much sub-Saharan ancestry do you have?), with (2) ethnopolitical group membership (Do you consider yourself A-A?), with (3) ethnic heritage (Did your grandparents experience the Jim Crow period as A-As?)
Those who stress the first perspective say that Afro-looking Brazilians are Black. Those who stress the second say that Gregory Howard Williams is Black. Those who stress the third say that Carol Channing is Black. President Obama is A-A to viewpoints 1 and 2 but not to viewpoint 3. Some Americans are stricter than others in applying the above three criteria. Finally, most Americans in my experience are inconsistent, arguing viewpoint 1 in one breath and then denying it in favor of viewpoint 2 or 3 in the very next breath (or vice-versa).
Nevertheless, no matter how odd and quirky Americans are on this issue, this particular forum is not the place to argue that any of the three viewpoints is reprehensible. So please go to "Issues for Biracial Americans" if you want to express value judgment about others' beliefs. This particular forum (History of the U.S. Color Line) is meant solely for dispassionate intellectual study of this U.S. weirdness.
In my experience this is most often a matter-of-fact observation of people's own families and/or communities, and is unrelated to hypodescent logic and people of mixed ethnicity.
Posted: Sat 11 Jul 2009 05:42 Post subject: Re: "Black people come in different colors"....
fwsweet wrote:
There is no doubt that many Americans conflate: (1) genetic ancestry (How much sub-Saharan ancestry do you have?), with (2) ethnopolitical group membership (Do you consider yourself A-A?), with (3) ethnic heritage (Did your grandparents experience the Jim Crow period as A-As?)
[ . . .]
Some Americans are stricter than others in applying the above three criteria. Finally, most Americans in my experience are inconsistent, arguing viewpoint 1 in one breath and then denying it in favor of viewpoint 2 or 3 in the very next breath (or vice-versa).
That seems to me an elegant summation. Perhaps part of the problem here is that as so often, people confuse the sign with what is signified, and ignore the fact that words have multiple, context-dependent senses? It almost seems that to some, the word becomes the reality, rather than a construct which attempts to describe a reality.
Also, in practice, it seems to me that at least some of the inconsistency to which you refer may reflect partial knowledge on the part of the speaker of the nation's complex racial institutions. Thus if a reporter describes Obama as the country's first black president, he isn't necessarily denying the validity of a mixed race designation and supporting the one drop rule, as opposed to referring implicitly to the fact that Obama is the first person to surmount the cultural and legal barriers that had previously prevented the election of a president with visible SSA traits; he's choosing the word "black" to describe extrinsically enforced ethnopolitical membership. And the same reporter might describe Obama as of mixed race in an article that focused on his parents and upbringing, because in that sense your first criterion is most applicable.
Posted: Sun 12 Jul 2009 06:20 Post subject: Re: "Black people come in different colors"....
JoshH wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
There is no doubt that many Americans conflate: (1) genetic ancestry (How much sub-Saharan ancestry do you have?), with (2) ethnopolitical group membership (Do you consider yourself A-A?), with (3) ethnic heritage (Did your grandparents experience the Jim Crow period as A-As?)
[ . . .]
Some Americans are stricter than others in applying the above three criteria. Finally, most Americans in my experience are inconsistent, arguing viewpoint 1 in one breath and then denying it in favor of viewpoint 2 or 3 in the very next breath (or vice-versa).
That seems to me an elegant summation. Perhaps part of the problem here is that as so often, people confuse the sign with what is signified, and ignore the fact that words have multiple, context-dependent senses? It almost seems that to some, the word becomes the reality, rather than a construct which attempts to describe a reality.
Also, in practice, it seems to me that at least some of the inconsistency to which you refer may reflect partial knowledge on the part of the speaker of the nation's complex racial institutions. Thus if a reporter describes Obama as the country's first black president, he isn't necessarily denying the validity of a mixed race designation and supporting the one drop rule, as opposed to referring implicitly to the fact that Obama is the first person to surmount the cultural and legal barriers that had previously prevented the election of a president with visible SSA traits; he's choosing the word "black" to describe extrinsically enforced ethnopolitical membership. And the same reporter might describe Obama as of mixed race in an article that focused on his parents and upbringing, because in that sense your first criterion is most applicable.
Those who claim that Obama and others are both "black" and "mixed race" never want to acknowledge that Americans can be 'white" and also "mixed-race." "Passing for white" denunciations nearly always start with black-identified Americans and are parroted by their liberal allies.
Posted: Sun 12 Jul 2009 20:52 Post subject: Re: "Black people come in different colors"....
Powell in Quotes:
Quote:
Those who claim that Obama and others are both "black" and "mixed race" never want to acknowledge that Americans can be 'white" and also "mixed-race." "Passing for white" denunciations nearly always start with black-identified Americans and are parroted by their liberal allies.
Absolutely correct A.D. In my estimation, considering the following...
* Blacks fear that they are inferior to Whites.
* Whites fear that they are Superior to Blacks.
* Neither Whites nor Blacks have the courage to admit racial differences.
* Whites fear mixing with Blacks.
* Blacks desire mixing with Whites ( relatively more than Whites do ).
* Whites feel guilty for their racist attitudes and past abuses of Blacks.
Then the above easily explains the dynamic AD observed. We need to support empirical analysis into the causal factors of the ODR social custom from both a socio-psychological and historical perspective.
Posted: Sun 12 Jul 2009 23:41 Post subject: Re: "Black people come in different colors"....
Powell wrote:
Those who claim that Obama and others are both "black" and "mixed race" never want to acknowledge that Americans can be 'white" and also "mixed-race." "Passing for white" denunciations nearly always start with black-identified Americans and are parroted by their liberal allies.
When used in the context of Obama, "black" usually refers to blackness as defined by the one drop rule, or a similarly skewed criterion, e.g., that of visible evidence of SSA heritage. And under the one drop rule, Obama cannot be white; the rule is intrinsically asymmetrical. Under a less prejudicial or political system of describing racial affinity, the words "black" and "white" ould of course be symmetrical.
So I can't agree with your assertion that those of us who say that Obama can be both black and of mixed race never want to acknowledge that people can be white and mixed race. Some may, but for me, it's a matter of using the words "black" and "white" in a different sense, e.g., that of genetic affiliation, or appearance.
Posted: Wed 15 Jul 2009 04:01 Post subject: Re: "Black people come in different colors"....
JoshH wrote:
Powell wrote:
Those who claim that Obama and others are both "black" and "mixed race" never want to acknowledge that Americans can be 'white" and also "mixed-race." "Passing for white" denunciations nearly always start with black-identified Americans and are parroted by their liberal allies.
When used in the context of Obama, "black" usually refers to blackness as defined by the one drop rule, or a similarly skewed criterion, e.g., that of visible evidence of SSA heritage. And under the one drop rule, Obama cannot be white; the rule is intrinsically asymmetrical. Under a less prejudicial or political system of describing racial affinity, the words "black" and "white" ould of course be symmetrical.
So I can't agree with your assertion that those of us who say that Obama can be both black and of mixed race never want to acknowledge that people can be white and mixed race. Some may, but for me, it's a matter of using the words "black" and "white" in a different sense, e.g., that of genetic affiliation, or appearance.
Ask yourself why Sonia Sotomayor is NOT being called the FIRST WOMAN OF AFRICAN ANCESTRY to be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. As a Puerto Rican, she certainly has the supposedly dreaded SSA ancestry. Why is there an unwritten but very real rule that the "black blood" in Latinos is NOT to be mentioned (much less called "black") while Anglos and Creoles can be denounced as "light-skinned blacks" (an oxymoron if there every was one)?
Posted: Wed 15 Jul 2009 12:46 Post subject: Re: "Black people come in different colors"....
Powell wrote:
Ask yourself why Sonia Sotomayor is NOT being called the FIRST WOMAN OF AFRICAN ANCESTRY to be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. As a Puerto Rican, she certainly has the supposedly dreaded SSA ancestry. Why is there an unwritten but very real rule that the "black blood" in Latinos is NOT to be mentioned (much less called "black") while Anglos and Creoles can be denounced as "light-skinned blacks" (an oxymoron if there every was one)?
I find it interesting that you used the word "denounced."
My sense in the case of Sotomayor is that the news cycle inevitably selects whatever is most man bites dog about a story, and "Latina" is from that perspective bigger news than "woman of African ancestry."
Still, I think you've touched on something interesting. The rule of tribal affiliation does seem to say that we must be classified as something or other so people will know whether to throw spears at our tent. It also seems likely that the typical reporter isn't familiar with the ethnic percentages of people from this or that country in Latin America, and won't identify a Latin-American as having black ancestry unless it's readily apparently to the eye. Or race could just belong to the Great Unsaid, buried by unspoken consensus since some Americans of Latin-American descent appear to dislike American-style racial classifications.
Joined: 07 Oct 2007 {Posts: 248 } Location: United States
Posted: Thu 03 Sep 2009 06:12 Post subject: Re: "Black people come in different colors"....
Whatareyou? wrote:
I cringe every time I see or hear this. Why do some Black people say this? Why do they classify every person with known or discernible African ancestry as Black?
I think using the word "black" in the first place is pretty much ambiguous. You can cringe all you want, but technically you cannot refute that "black people come in different colors." People show little effort, if any, to differentiate between Sub-Saharan African and African American/Diasporic. It's all semantics, and I'm beating a dead horse by telling you this.
I personally cannot limit folks of obviously mixed decent to a solely "black" label based on looks alone, even though I know "black" is an unclear term. I probably feel this way because of all I've read on here about genetics and ancestry. But it is now illogical in my own head to do so...I pretty much see folks in terms of genetics and phenotype now, and my own labels are based on what I think they look like. It's not that I disagree with their own ethnic labels, but it's what I've started doing unconciously.
In practice, "black" people do not come in all colors. A person who has entirely and exclusively European genetic ancestry is not allowed to be "black" in a generalized US context. Nor is a person who is entirely yellow (in this context meaning east Asian) or some other non-African variety, or some mix that involves no African ancestry at all. No. The notion that "black people come in all colors" is specifically meant to imply that "blackness" consists of persons with complete African ancestry, and also persons with some African ancestry and some degree or combination of some other.
Two more critical points are implicit in the phrase "black people come in all colors."
1. "White" people do not come in a variety of colors. They are defined as something which is entirely "white" or pure.
2. Anyone who is anything but entirely "white" goes in the category that involves "all colors" which is "black."
I do not understand how this phrase can be interpreted as anything other than a direct expression of one dropping. Sure it is meant affectionately as a form if inclusiveness by most who use it, but that doesn't make it benign.
Sure it is meant affectionately as a form if inclusiveness by most who use it, but that doesn't make it benign.
The above tastes a bit too much like value judgement for this forum. I agree that the phrase "black people come in all colors" is a form of one-dropping (a form of hypodescent, to be precise). But whether hypodescent is Good (it enhances ethnic solidarity) or Bad (it stifles freedom of choice) is best debated in the advocacy forums.
What I meant was that persons, other then myself, who use the term might mean the term affectionately. I was not saying that there was or wasn't something wrong with that affection. Persons will formulate their own opinions on the matter of whether it is a good or bad thing, but if they are reasonable they must accept that they are supporting one dropping if they support the use of this expression.
My use of the term "benign" was also not meant to equate the expression "we come in many colors" to something negative (or cancerous as the term can also mean). It was meant to point out that a possible intended affection did not take away the term's OD aspect.
My statements were intended to address these sorts of points, from this thread-
sagascend wrote:
The few times I have heard a person say that "Blacks come in all colors" it is to affirm that a self-identified Black person with visual Euro admixture is part of the AA ethnic group. I've never heard this phrase used to one-drop, likely because there are much more direct statements to express the sentiment (i.e., "S/he's really Black").
Phil345 wrote:
In my experience this is most often a matter-of-fact observation of people's own families and/or communities, and is unrelated to hypodescent logic and people of mixed ethnicity.
Grasshoppa wrote:
You can cringe all you want, but technically you cannot refute that "black people come in different colors." People show little effort, if any, to differentiate between Sub-Saharan African and African American/Diasporic.
My point being that a person who uses the phrase "blacks come in many colors" is, in fact, one dropping regardless of whether they are aware of it, intending to do so, meaning the phrase only as a gesture of inclusion, or whatever.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
