Los Angeles Times
Opinion
Mr. rights
June 20, 2009
Benjamin Jealous hears it so often that I’m sure he just lets it slide off by now: “You weren’t even born when …” Fill in the blank with your favorite milestone of recent racial history in this country -- when Rosa Parks sat down on the bus, when the Civil Rights Act passed, when the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. But at age 36, the California native and the youngest president of the NAACP was certainly present for the biggest milestone of all -- Barack Obama’s election. In a few weeks, Jealous will preside over the NAACP’s 100th anniversary convention. He’s a Rhodes scholar who went to work for a scrappy Mississippi black newspaper that was firebombed for its exposes. He has organized voter registration drives, run a human rights program at Amnesty International -- and, when he had time, used to run marathons.
Welcome back to California. Do you miss us?
Yes, absolutely. If we could move the NAACP out here tomorrow, I would.
What do you miss?
Well, family, first of all, but I also just miss the mishmash of California -- California’s a very vibrant place.
You grew up in Monterey County. Do you think California’s more advanced on racial and ethnic matters because we’re a mishmash?
Yes and no. At a certain level, the polite society of California can be very diverse. On the other hand, when you look at the racial statistics in this state, they can be extremely startling. Black children are 15% of the population of the U.S. and 26% of the youth arrests each year. In California, those numbers are 9% and 43%. So when you’re poor or working class in California, how the police treat you often has something to do with their stereotypes. Monterey County, where I grew up, is included in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, with a long history of Chicanos being discriminated against at the voting box. Monterey County is where Chinese fishermen used to own most of the coastline of what is now Pebble Beach, and their villages burned down mysteriously in the first part of the 20th century. There’s something about the state that made all of that possible, that still lingers with us today
What was your personal epiphany; when did you realize discrimination was real?
My father’s white and my mother’s black. There was always a conversation on race and racial exclusion in our household. I remember being 5 years old and one of a handful of black boys living in Pacific Grove, and being followed around the five-and-dime and wondering if they thought we were criminals at 5 years old. It was one of those moments: “I don’t think they treat every kid like this.”
I read that some kid at school made fun of you, thinking that you were rich because your nanny was picking you up -- and it was your mother.
I had to set that boy straight. I straightened him out the way that I continue to straighten people out today, which is with my mouth.
You’re biracial, so do you make the choice to be black, or is it the one-drop rule that makes you black?
The only definitions that exist are anachronistic state laws. The U.S. census doesn’t have definitions -- you could define yourself as whatever you want; it’s a self-reporting mechanism. My family is from Virginia, and the law on the books was if you were 1/32 African, you were black. Black is the inclusive definition; white is the exclusive definition. When I grew up in the 1970s, that was the understanding.
Ideally, the NAACP would get to the point where you could hang up a “Going out of business” sign. Yet you have to say “so and so is black and is discriminated against because of that.” How do you get past that paradox?
There’s really no paradox. In Los Angeles, you’d be hard-pressed to find an Angeleno who couldn’t tell you where the black neighborhood is, where the predominantly black schools are -- or for that matter, Latino or white or Asian. There is still a racial geography and a line that starts at the level of the community and goes down to the individuals.
Some parents, for reasons that are understandable, don’t want to deny their children their own racial [identity].There’s nothing about saying you’re black that denies European heritage. Being black in this country almost from the beginning -- slaves were raped on the slave ships coming over -- included European heritage.
I’m concerned that people want to “improve” racial classification. We need to just let it go away. When people say, “I prefer to say I’m biracial or multiracial” -- that’s not just ahistorical; my concern is that it forces race to stick with us longer.
After the election, there were jokes about black people overwhelmed at how nice white people were being to them.
We’ll see in 20 years the impact of this moment, simply because I do believe that for children like my daughter, who is 3, growing up in a country where it [has been] always possible for a black person to become president is a fundamentally different reality. Having the first family be the image of black people that you see most frequently on your television will have an impact. We believe in the power of images, and we certainly expect that the Obama generation will see themselves differently.
Speaking of images, is Hollywood still unconquered territory?
Hollywood is still contested territory. You have a show like “ER” replaced by a show like “Southland,” a very diverse cast [replaced by] a very white cast, a complex portrait of all races with one that’s very simplistic. So there’s this constant ebb-and-flow here. Right now in television there’s been some fairly negative developments, a narrowing pipeline for young talent. Yet, at the same time, it’s hard to imagine the country envisioning a young man named Barack Obama becoming president if Dennis Haysbert hadn’t been president on “24” -- or for that matter, James Earl Jones in “The Man,” and all the ones in between. Hollywood often makes advances ahead of the rest of society, and it’s also been known to retreat on us unexpectedly.
What’s in your iPod?
I listen to a lot of John Legend and Amos Lee, Marvin Gaye and John Cougar Mellencamp.
patt.morrison@latimes.com. This interview was edited and excerpted from a longer taped transcript. Archives: latimes.com/pattasks.
Posted: Sat 20 Jun 2009 20:04 Post subject: Ben Jealous
"There’s nothing about saying you’re black that denies European heritage. Being black in this country almost from the beginning -- slaves were raped on the slave ships coming over -- included European heritage."
By saying this, is Jealous not, in some way, putting his own father, who is White, on the same level as men who raped slaves? Evidently for some it makes little to no difference as to how people representing different ancestries entered the family tree.
"I’m concerned that people want to “improve” racial classification. We need to just let it go away. When people say, “I prefer to say I’m biracial or multiracial” -- that’s not just ahistorical; my concern is that it forces race to stick with us longer."
Am I then to assume that people like Jealous (or Rainier Spencer, etc.) would be perfectly fine and even welcoming if some Americans opted to more formally identify as no race at all, instead simply highlighting their recent ancestry (e.g., Northern European/Irish, Western African/Nigerian, etc.)?
Posted: Sun 21 Jun 2009 07:25 Post subject: Re: Ben Jealous
Quote:
"I’m concerned that people want to “improve” racial classification. We need to just let it go away. When people say, “I prefer to say I’m biracial or multiracial” -- that’s not just ahistorical; my concern is that it forces race to stick with us longer."
That's cool, Mr. Jealous. That is why I say that I am mulatto, mixed, black & white, or a halfie. See? I don't use any word containing "race" or "racial". I have let race go. I don't seek to improve "racial classification" or force "race to stick with us longer", just like you don't force "race to stick with us longer" by calling yourself black or by working for/leading the National Association for the Advancement of COLORED People!
Posted: Sun 21 Jun 2009 16:38 Post subject: Ben Jealous
Melani23 wrote:
What else do you expect the President of the NAACP to say? He says what is expected and what is the position of Black Intellegesia.
I agree with you on this. I guess it's just somewhat perplexing to me when people, such as Jealous or Melissa Harris-Lacewell, both of which have a White parent, cavalierly throw out the “We're all [AAs] mixed” argument (Jealous of course inadvertently highlighted an important distinction with his white rapists line). To be clear, if they see no difference, so be it. If only they would be clear that they are speaking for themselves rather than for many others who find the argument silly and/or offensive.
Posted: Thu 25 Jun 2009 17:07 Post subject: Ben Jealous
Jealous said:
Quote:
I’m concerned that people want to “improve” racial classification. We need to just let it go away. When people say, “I prefer to say I’m biracial or multiracial” -- that’s not just ahistorical; my concern is that it forces race to stick with us longer.
If the NAACP wants "race" to go away, why do they fight Ward Connerly and anyone else who wants to get rid of racial classifications tooth and nail?
Jealous is the one who doesn't know history. Racial Mixture was recognized in a large variety of ways and terms of nomenclature. It was recognized in the Census of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The fact is that recognizing racial mixture undermines racial classification. That's what the NAACP fears.
Some parents, for reasons that are understandable, don’t want to deny their children their own racial [identity].There’s nothing about saying you’re black that denies European heritage. Being black in this country almost from the beginning -- slaves were raped on the slave ships coming over -- included European heritage.
THis argument has always irritated me. It's a comment that, i feel, is meant to put to undermine mixed race ID's by saying everyone is mixed somewhere down the line (or that many are mixed)...so big whoop. And then to reassert the social power struggle of black and white that has occured in this country's history. It's a way of saying, it's ridiculous to call yourself mixed in a method that's meant to shame you out of it.
It irritates me enough to here people point out that everyone is mixed with ancestors that they cannot name or identify, let alone grew up with as a way to downplay my own racial noncomformity. It's another world to compare slave rape to my parents. And beyond words when the person doing it has a white parent from a non-rape relationship.
Quote:
I’m concerned that people want to “improve” racial classification. We need to just let it go away. When people say, “I prefer to say I’m biracial or multiracial” -- that’s not just ahistorical; my concern is that it forces race to stick with us longer.
And how, pray tell, is this worse than self-identifying as black or white? And who cares if it's ahistorical (even though it's not). Once upon a time our accepted racial terms were also ahistorical as was terms such as american. We made up the terms as it suited our social/political realm. Mixed people are now using terms that better suit their unique perspective that they've grown up in.
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 {Posts: 311 } Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posted: Thu 25 Jun 2009 20:08 Post subject:
Quote:
THis argument has always irritated me. It's a comment that, i feel, is meant to put to undermine mixed race ID's by saying everyone is mixed somewhere down the line (or that many are mixed)...so big whoop. And then to reassert the social power struggle of black and white that has occured in this country's history. It's a way of saying, it's ridiculous to call yourself mixed in a method that's meant to shame you out of it.
I disagree.
It's function of the fact that the overwhelming majority of visibly mixed people are part of the black American ethnic group. They are inextricably tied to black Americans of African phenotype by family ties, marriage, religious and political organizations, not to mention neighborhood.
So they will naturally insist that their self definition is the only definition. It's all about them. They aren't even particularly interested in anyone else.
It's not hostility. It's indifference, along with the incomprehension and disdain which accompanies any culture's encounter with another culture with differing values.
It goes without saying that a visibly mixed person who wants a career in politics should probably ID as a black American. See Exhibit A.
So they will naturally insist that their self definition is the only definition. It's all about them. They aren't even particularly interested in anyone else.
Yes, that would make sense...though I've seen those who aren't visibly mixed also do this. It still feels, though, that there's an expectation for all the mixed id'd people will wake up to the truth of a monochromatic world where they are just the oddly tinted ones in the picture.
I agree with the wording disdain....it seems the appropriate wording.
Quote:
It goes without saying that a visibly mixed person who wants a career in politics should probably ID as a black American. See Exhibit A.
Lol, true enough...I think I'll abstain from the arena.
Posted: Fri 26 Jun 2009 04:38 Post subject: caste into ethnic group?
odocoileus wrote:
Quote:
THis argument has always irritated me. It's a comment that, i feel, is meant to put to undermine mixed race ID's by saying everyone is mixed somewhere down the line (or that many are mixed)...so big whoop. And then to reassert the social power struggle of black and white that has occured in this country's history. It's a way of saying, it's ridiculous to call yourself mixed in a method that's meant to shame you out of it.
I disagree.
It's function of the fact that the overwhelming majority of visibly mixed people are part of the black American ethnic group. They are inextricably tied to black Americans of African phenotype by family ties, marriage, religious and political organizations, not to mention neighborhood.
Who says? No studies have been done on that. You are probably also ignoring Hispanics, the various tri-racial groups, etc?
So they will naturally insist that their self definition is the only definition. It's all about them. They aren't even particularly interested in anyone else.
It's not hostility. It's indifference, along with the incomprehension and disdain which accompanies any culture's encounter with another culture with differing values.
It goes without saying that a visibly mixed person who wants a career in politics should probably ID as a black American. See Exhibit A. :lol:
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 {Posts: 311 } Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posted: Fri 26 Jun 2009 14:38 Post subject: Re: caste into ethnic group?
Who says? No studies have been done on that. You are probably also ignoring Hispanics, the various tri-racial groups, etc?
I should have specified visibly mixed African and non African ancestry. There are more than 40 million black Americans. They have a mean non African ancestry of approx 20 per cent. So approx 20 million people have mixture ranging from 20 per cent to 99 per cent.
For a variety of reasons, these folks are often in leadership positions in black American organizations - politics, religion, academia, and they aren't going to define themselves out of membership in the organizations they seek to lead. I suspect that they experience black American identity as less of a burden, because they have more money, education, and political influence.
The tri racial isolate groups are small in number, and culturally and geographically marginal. Few people know much about them, and their unique situation caused them to live apart from everyone else. Many of their members aren't visibly mixed either. I went to school w/ a number of Piscataway (Wesorts) kids in MD. Only some of them were visibly mixed. Many of them were just white, and lived as such.
WRT to Hispanics, most Mexican Americans don't have substantial African ancestry. The mean, I believe, is 8 per cent. Mexican Americans are the largest Hispanic group in the US. Puerto Ricans and Cubans often have substantial African ancestry, but they also tend to live apart from the English speaking cultural mainsteam. It's also not unusual for visibly mixed Cubans and Puerto Ricans to assimilate into the black American cultural community.
Posted: Fri 26 Jun 2009 22:42 Post subject: Re: caste into ethnic group?
odocoileus wrote:
I should have specified visibly mixed African and non African ancestry.
Visible to whom? To me, all people descended from Spanish Caribbean fit this description. To you they might not.
odocoileus wrote:
US. Puerto Ricans and Cubans often have substantial African ancestry, but they also tend to live apart from the English speaking cultural mainsteam.
I doubt that very much. Perhaps some do, but I seriously doubt that most do. 90 percent check off "White" on the census, after all.
odocoileus wrote:
It's also not unusual for visibly mixed Cubans and Puerto Ricans to assimilate into the black American cultural community.
Depends on what you mean by "unusual." If you refer to the 10 percent who check off Black, I would consider 10 percent very unusual indeed. If you are suggesting that the 90 percent who check off White actually assimilate into the Black community despite their documented self-identity, this is so implausible that I must ask for a source.
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 {Posts: 311 } Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posted: Sat 27 Jun 2009 02:03 Post subject:
quote] Visible to whom? To me, all people descended from Spanish Caribbean fit this description. To you they might not. [/quote]
This takes us into the whole debate about determining ancestry by phenotype. It's clear to me that Ben Jealous has both African and European ancestry, based on his phenotype. My claim is that the great majority of Anglo Americans with a mixed African / European phenotype identify and are identified as black Americans for the reasons specified above. The focus of my post was black American self identification / group definition. I only addressed the issue of identification among Hispanics because AD raised it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying, on the one hand, that all Hispanics of Caribbean origin look to you to have a mixed African / European phenotype. On the other hand, you object to my characterization of Puerto Ricans and Cubans as often having substantial African ancestry. This seems to be contradiction.
For example, if you see the upper class, tiriguena Cubans in Miami as being visibly mixed, well, I can't argue with your perception. It's not central to my argument that they not be. Still, my understanding of the history of South Florida is that Cubans with more African phenotypes were unwelcome in Jim Crow Florida. They tended to settle in the NY / NJ metro area and have the same issues as Puerto Ricans, or so I've read.
I used the term "often" which is vague enough to inspire some questions about precision. I never suggested that the majority of Caribbean origin Hispanics have majority African ancestry. My intent was to answer the implied question, "Since there are people in the Puerto Rican and Cuban American communities with phenotypes like Ben Jealous', why are they not also called "black"? Why are they not also considered part of the black American ethnic group?
My answer was and is that they don't have a long history of family ties, political and organizational ties to black Anglos the way that multiracial Anglos do to black Anglos.
I don't see the observation that many Hispanics of Caribbean origin live outside the US English speaking cultural mainstream as controversial. Language wise, food wise, religion wise, notions of race wise, it's clear to me that we're talking about separate cultures.
What I've observed repeatedly over the years is Puerto Ricans and to a lesser extent what I would call mulatto Cubans living in black American neighborhoods, dating and marrying black Americans, even joining black fraternities at historically black colleges. I would never claim that the majority of Hispanics do this. What I have observed is that are there are consistently some Caribbean Hispanics assimilating into black American communities in New York, Chicago, and other major metro areas. Because there are always some, I say it's not an unusual phenomenon.
ETA
As opposed to white Anglos, who I've only very rarely seen assimilating into black American culture in the same way.
My claim is that the great majority of Anglo Americans with a mixed African / European phenotype identify and are identified as black Americans for the reasons specified above. The focus of my post was black American self identification / group definition. I only addressed the issue of identification among Hispanics because AD raised it.
You miss A.D.'s point as well as mine. Perhaps you should refresh your familiarity with 3.3.11. You continue to use the word "black" ambiguously. Sometimes you use it to denote "of subsaharan ancestry" and sometimes to denote "of African-American self-identity." I have been tolerant because I thought that your ambiguity was mere carelessness, and that you would eventually settle on one definition or the other. However, you are now persuading me that your usage ambiguity is deliberate. If this turns out to be the case, I shall suspend you posting privilege with no further warning.
To avoid suspension, stop using the word "black in this thread. From now on, in any phrase where you mean "of subsaharan ancestry," please use the phrase "of subsaharan ancestry." And wherever you mean to convey "of African-American self-identity," please use the phrase "of African-American self-identity."
odocoileus wrote:
you object to my characterization of Puerto Ricans and Cubans as often having substantial African ancestry.
Not so. You wrote "Puerto Ricans and Cubans ... tend to live apart from the English speaking cultural mainstream." I replied, "I doubt that very much. Perhaps some do [live apart from the English speaking cultural mainstream], but I seriously doubt that most do [live apart from the English speaking cultural mainstream]. 90 percent check off "White" on the census, after all."
Let us get back to your implausible claim: "the overwhelming majority of visibly mixed people are part of the black American ethnic group." This claim was so implausible that it was challenged. I would claim that the overwhelming majority of visibly mixed people in the U.S. are part of the Hispanic ethnic group.
Instead of providing a source for this implausible claim or retracting it, you changed it to "visibly mixed African and non African ancestry." The problem remained. I continued to insist that virtually all Hispanics enjoy a mix of African and non-African ancestry which is visible to my eyes. Your claim is as implausible (and unsourced) as ever.
Now, instead of providing a source for the implausible claim or retracting it, you introduced three red herrings: whether virtually all Hispanics actually have visible subsaharan ancestry (they do), whether Hispanics are a cultural enclave within the U.S. (they are not), and why is it that Hispanics (who do not self-identify as African Americans) fail to self-identify as African-Americans. (A silly tautology.)
I am losing patience. Your claim is shrinking from "The overwhelming majority of visibly mixed people are part of the black American ethnic group" to a tautology: "The overwhelming majority of visibly mixed people who self-identify African American, self-identify African American."
This is your last chance to express your thesis objectively.
"The overwhelming majority of [group-A] are part of [group-B]."
Provide an unambiguous objective delineation of "group-A." Provide an unambiguous objective delineation of "group-B." Make it clear. Do not change it again. See rule 3.6 for details.
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 {Posts: 311 } Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posted: Sat 27 Jun 2009 06:28 Post subject:
The majority of Hispanics in the US are Mexican Americans. The incidence of SSA ancestry in that population is low, I believe 8 per cent. I don't see any way you can claim the majority of Mexican Americans as displaying visible SSA ancestry. So "virtually all Hispanics" is a very extreme claim to make on your part.
I'm usually fairly strict about distinguishing between black American self identity and African phenotypes. I have no interest in confusing the two, though it's easy to do in the course of discussion for the sake of brevity and convenience. Any confusion was unintentional on my part.
It was my intention to refer specifically to people of mixed SSA / non SSA phenotype. My claim is that the overwhelming majority of these people, in mainstream Anglo culture, self identify as part of the black American ethnic group.
My reasoning process goes like this:
I rule out almost all Mexican Americans, because they don't have much African ancestry. I rule out the majority of Caribbean Hispanics because they aren't part of the Anglo cultural mainstream. We disagree, apparently vehemently, on this point. I also see important segments of the Caribbean Hispanic population, like upper class Cubans in Miami, as showing little evidence of SSA ancestry in their phenotypes.
That leaves the majority of people of mixed SSA/non SSA phenotype and US Anglo culture being self identified members of the black American ethnic group. I called this an overwhelming majority, and that may be an overstatement right now. Certainly it was an overwhelming majority as of 1960, before the large scale Hispanic immigration to the US, and it is still a substantial majority now.
I do absolutely believe that Hispanics are a cultural enclave within the US. I should say, form cultural enclaves within the US, because there are numerous Hispanic cultural enclaves. You take great exception to this. I'm not sure why. It's a widely held belief among various academics as well as marketing people. What delineates these cultural enclaves are things like language, food, religion, voting patterns, marriage practices, sports, media, and so on. Maybe I'm grossly misinformed, but this is what I've read, and witnessed on a daily basis here in Los Angeles. Everything I've been told about Miami also identifies the Cuban community there as a cultural enclave.
I also take issue with the Hispanic census identification as white, as an indication of membership in the US cultural mainstream. The designation "white" was and is part of Cuban and Puerto Rican culture, so embracing it is no proof of participation in the US cultural mainstream.
So, to sum up, I believe that self identified members of the black American ethnic group make up the great majority of people in mainstream US Anglo culture who display a mixed SSA/non SSA phenotype. I cannot in any way accept the claim that the majority of Hispanics, who are Mexican American, display SSA ancestry in the majority of their phenotypes.
"The overwhelming majority of [group-A] are part of [group-B]." Provide an unambiguous objective delineation of "group-A." Provide an unambiguous objective delineation of "group-B." Make it clear. Do not change it again. See rule 3.6 for details.
odocoileus wrote:
the overwhelming majority of people of [mixed SSA / non SSA phenotype], in mainstream Anglo culture, self identify as part of the black American ethnic group.
You apparently doubt that I was serious in warning you to stop using "black" in an ambiguous way. Last warning. Do it once more and your posting privilege will be immediately suspended.
You apparently do not understand "objective." Your misuse of "phenotype" above renders your claim non-objective. You have 24 hours to come up with some way of measuring "mixed SSA / non SSA phenotype" that a hostile skeptic (like me) would agree with. Skin tone? Hair curliness? Something that clearly distinguishes "mixed SSA / non SSA phenotype" from other phenotypes. NOT your personal eyeball!
Finally, if you want to express your opinion about whether Hispanics are a cultural enclave, please start a new thread. Before doing so, please read up on the meaning of "enclave" and "out-marriage," and then educate yourself as to the out-marriage rates (with White Americans and with A-As) of Hispanics (both Mexicans and Caribbeans).
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
He says what is expected and what is the position of Black Intellegesia.
