Blacks have supported the social denigration of multiracials since the 17th century, at least.
I have seen no evidence of this. As far as I can tell, ideas of ethnic solidarity arose only with the widening of the franchise in Jacksonian times.
Well Frank, in that case you have to admit by DE FACTO THAT multiracials and Blacks did not represent the same ethnic group before 1830. And according to my research that was still the case as late as the 1930s.
I beleive you. But surely you see the implications of your statement.
Last edited by ImBack on Sun 12 Jul 2009 21:20; edited 1 time in total
I'm afraid you've lost me here. I think we were all puzzled by the ODR when we were first exposed to it, black, mixed, or white. In one case I'm thinking of, a classmate asked another classmate why he was a member of the black students' organization, and he explained that his grandfather was black.
That's where you are mistaken my friend. Blacks have supported the social denigration of multiracials since the 17th century, at least. Jim Crow has nothing to do with it. Blacks haven't sometimes misused the ODR. Blacks routinely missuse the ODR.
*WHY ARE BLACKS THE OFFICIAL SPOKESPEOPLE OF THE ODR?
*WHY DO ODR DENOUNCIATIONS USUALLY BEGIN WITH BLACKS?
*WHY DO BLACKS ARGUE TO YOUR FACE VIRULENTY AND WHITES DON'T ?
*WHY DO BLACKS PERPETRATE VIOLENCE AND VERBAL ABUSE AGAINST ANYONE WHO BREAKS THEIR TABOO?
*WHY DO BLACKS CONSIDER THE ODR ESSENTIAL TO THEIR IDENTITY?
If I had a penny for each of your apologies I'd be a millionaire.
As it happens, I've discussed this issue a bit in the last few days with a black ODR exponent in another forum, it's what made me curious and brought me here with my question. This guy comes across as radical and impassioned, and gets a lot of flack for it. But interestingly enough, as soon as he knew that I understood where he was coming from, he was very reasonable, even plaintive in his concerns. Note the "plaintive."
Suppose you were a black kid who looked up to Barack Obama and Tiger Woods, and then everyone started saying they weren't black. Just asking. Or suppose some Hispanic guy who's 25% African posted something saying he wasn't part black, he was just Hispanic, as I saw someone do the other day.
Suppose you were a black kid who looked up to Barack Obama and Tiger Woods, and then everyone started saying they weren't black. Just asking. Or suppose some Hispanic guy who's 25% African posted something saying he wasn't part black, he was just Hispanic, as I saw someone do the other day.
Suppose you were an Asian-American kid who looked up to Tiger Woods, and then everyone started saying he wasn't Asian-American. Or suppose some Puerto Rican kid looks up to Geraldo Rivera and somebody says that he is not Puerto Rican, but 25% Black instead.
To avoid hypocrisy, you must either accept the idea that everyone has the right to self-identify as they choose or reject the idea. The idea that everyone has that right happens to be my own position. To say that no one has that right is the more traditional belief (and that of my 94-year-old mother). But to say that some have that right as long as you agree with their choice, but others do not (if you disagree with their choice) sound a lot like hypocrisy to me.
Suppose you were a black kid who looked up to Barack Obama and Tiger Woods, and then everyone started saying they weren't black. Just asking. Or suppose some Hispanic guy who's 25% African posted something saying he wasn't part black, he was just Hispanic, as I saw someone do the other day.
Suppose you were an Asian-American kid who looked up to Tiger Woods, and then everyone started saying he wasn't Asian-American. Or suppose some Puerto Rican kid looks up to Geraldo Rivera and somebody says that he is not Puerto Rican, but 25% Black instead.
I'd analyze it in terms of Melville's law of fast and loose fish: Asian Americans aren't in the process of "losing" people who had formerly been considered Asian American, because to the best of my knowledge, the one drop rule has never played as large a role in the lives of Asian-Americans as it has in the lives of African-Americans.
Also, I don't see the ODR notion of blackness as an attempt to deny the other elements of Woods's multiracial heritage, or of Obama's. It seems to me instead a relic of enforced ethnopolitical affiliation.
Quote:
To avoid hypocrisy, you must either accept the idea that everyone has the right to self-identify as they choose or reject the idea. The idea that everyone has that right happens to be my own position. To say that no one has that right is the more traditional belief (and that of my 94-year-old mother). But to say that some have that right as long as you agree with their choice, but others do not (if you disagree with their choice) sound a lot like hypocrisy to me.
I think I agree with your mom. What, otherwise, is to prevent me from self-identifying as Chinese, even though I've no Chinese ancestry whatsoever? I'm speaking of course of racial definitions, rather than ethnopolitical affinity, which is partly, perhaps even wholly, voluntary.
But more to the point, I want to emphasize that I'm not making an argument in favor of the one drop rule, which as I said seems to me an unfortunate relic of white assumptions of racial inferiority. And I certainly don't favor giving anyone, white or black, the right to insist that someone is something that they are not. I'm merely pointing out that I think I empathize with the reluctance of some in the African-American community to abandon it. And from a moral perspective, I'm more kindly disposed towards those who emphasize the one drop rule because it was imposed on them than those who imposed it, and to those who like Obama self-identify as a reaction to racism than those who try to discard a portion of their heritage because it's socially inconvenient.
While I don't deny that blacks have sometimes misused the ODR, I still shrink from comparing the institutions of Jim Crow to contemporary black attitudes, particularly since I see the latter as essentially a consequence of the former.
That's where you are mistaken my friend. Blacks have supported the social denigration of multiracials since the 17th century, at least. Jim Crow has nothing to do with it. Blacks haven't sometimes misused the ODR. Blacks routinely missuse the ODR.
*WHY ARE BLACKS THE OFFICIAL SPOKESPEOPLE OF THE ODR?
*WHY DO ODR DENOUNCIATIONS USUALLY BEGIN WITH BLACKS?
*WHY DO BLACKS ARGUE TO YOUR FACE VIRULENTY AND WHITES DON'T ?
*WHY DO BLACKS PERPETRATE VIOLENCE AND VERBAL ABUSE AGAINST ANYONE WHO BREAKS THEIR TABOO?
*WHY DO BLACKS CONSIDER THE ODR ESSENTIAL TO THEIR IDENTITY?
If I had a penny for each of your apologies I'd be a millionaire.
First off, You really need to calm down,
a lot of these 'blacks' your dealing with 'let's paint a true picture' are biracial mixed or multiracial themselves
White's don't? Because they don't see it as their issues or their problems for the most part.
And I've found that whites tend to be very agreeable or 'ignorant' to these discussions. Most are not going to argue about weither your mixed or not. But a lot of times it's in their reactions. Full of stereotyping.
I have a friend who is biracial and she cut her hair very short as the result of her friend having cancer and loosing her hair, and her coworkers didn't know why(she cut her hair) but she automatically became 'militant' or 'angry' in their eyes(white coworkers)
Whites 'one drop' in my opinion by their stereotyping
that's very extreme and exagerated that blacks perpetrate violence against anyone who breaks 'their taboos'
I'm having a lot of trouble with your exagerations
Last edited by gemini072 on Tue 14 Jul 2009 00:34; edited 3 times in total
I'm afraid you've lost me here. I think we were all puzzled by the ODR when we were first exposed to it, black, mixed, or white. In one case I'm thinking of, a classmate asked another classmate why he was a member of the black students' organization, and he explained that his grandfather was black.
I know what you mean,
I've had a good number of little conversations from junior high up till know where black identified americans were very relaxed with identity
I remember my brother way back in the late 70's talking about a friend of his who was 'biracial' or mixed kid as he was called. 'Black when with his black friends and white when with his white friends, he's a cool cat.'
and years later he says the same 'if they say they are black then they are black if they say they are white then they are white'
You say that you are against imposing the ODR on others personally. However, while it might not have been your intent, some of your comments are quite similar to comments made by others in an effort to advance the ODR.
For instance, yes, AAs didn’t start the racial madness. But it’s not a valid excuse to say, “Well, they (in this case, Whites) did it first.” Those – including many AAs – that continue to fiercely advocate the ODR today have to take some ownership of it.
That AAs will “lose” people if multiracials don’t identify as AA implies that that latter group in some way belongs to or is owned by the former group to begin with.
What will AA kids think if someone with partial SSA ancestry does not identify solely as AA? I get the feeling that if it was explained to them that a person is recognizing all of his or her ancestry and experiences, the AA child likely could grasp/handle it – likely far better than many adults. (There might also be understanding on the part of the AA child if it was explained that people at times identify as one thing more than the other, whether AA or White for instance, based on their individual experiences.) And why must it be an either/or scenario? I would argue that there is enough of people, like Obama and Woods, to go around. Meaning, AA children/adults can certainly connect with Obama owing to his identification as Black in general and AA in particular, and by the fact that Obama married an AA woman and is raising his children as AA. On the flip side, multiracial children, of whatever background (meaning even those without partial SSA ancestry) can connect with Obama because of his diverse ancestry and experiences. With Woods, same thing. AA children can find a connection with Woods via his father and the heritage he passed down to Woods, just as Asian-American children (specifically Chinese or Thai) can find a connection to Woods via his mother and the heritage she passed down to Woods. Clearly multiracial kids, of whatever background, can find a connection with Woods. The problem is that some people do not simply want a connection, they want and need a full claim/full ownership of such individuals. For instance, some multiraicals are put off that Obama does not identify as solely multiracial. Some AAs are put off that Woods does not identify as solely AA. In fact, I’m sure there are some AAs who bristle at the fact that Obama has highlighted his diverse ancestry and experiences to the extent he has. I recall an AA woman, a host on an AA-centered radio show, who had quite a fit during the democratic primaries. A brief news story had just come out talking about Obama’s Irish roots – and in this woman’s eyes, this story was nothing more than an effort to say that a “Black man couldn’t be this intelligent and successful on his own” without “White blood.” I wondered what this woman’s reaction was this past St. Patrick’ Day when Obama made a brief mention of these same Irish roots at a press conference. Importantly, yes, I have heard some people – White supremacists actually – argue that Obama’s success owes to his “White blood.” But should the fact the some people think this warrant never talking about Obama’s mother’s side of the family?
My “moral perspective,” similar to what Frank said above, is that people must be afforded the right to identify as they see fit. It is not my place to tell them how to identify (just as it is not my place to tell them whom to date or marry, or where to live). Those that take it so personally how I (or anyone else) identify should ask themselves: Why would I not take my identity personally – after all, it is my ancestry and experiences. Finally, coming to mind is a man who identifies as "Asiatic" or "Moorish American." If you go to this link - http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06067/666764.stm - you will observe that ten times out of ten someone passing this man on the street would view/treat him as AA. With that said, how this man identifies is not something over which I will be losing any sleep.
You say that you are against imposing the ODR on others personally. However, while it might not have been your intent, some of your comments are quite similar to comments made by others in an effort to advance the ODR.
For instance, yes, AAs didn’t start the racial madness. But it’s not a valid excuse to say, “Well, they (in this case, Whites) did it first.” Those – including many AAs – that continue to fiercely advocate the ODR today have to take some ownership of it.
Well, Colin Powell said, when discussing the Woods fracas, "In America, which I love from the depths of my heart and soul, when you look like me, you're black." That's not the sort of sentiment I'd get hot and bothered about. He's referring to a social reality, rather than something he created or that's of his own choosing.
Quote:
That AAs will “lose” people if multiracials don’t identify as AA implies that that latter group in some way belongs to or is owned by the former group to begin with.
What will AA kids think if someone with partial SSA ancestry does not identify solely as AA? I get the feeling that if it was explained to these kids that a person is recognizing all of his or her ancestry and experiences, the AA kid likely could grasp/handle it – likely far better than many adults. And why must it be an either/or scenario? I would argue that there is enough of people, like Obama and Woods, to go around. Meaning, AA children/adults can certainly connect with Obama owing to his identification as Black in general and AA in particular, and by the fact that Obama married an AA woman and is raising his children as AA. On the flip side, multiracial children, of whatever background (meaning even those without partial SSA ancestry) can connect with Obama because of his diverse ancestry and experiences. With Woods, same thing. AA children can find a connection with Woods via his father and the heritage he passed down to Woods, just as Asian-American (specifically Chinese or Thai) can find a connection to Woods via his mother and the heritage she passed down to Woods. Clearly multiracial kids, of whatever background, can find a connection with Woods. The problem is that some people do not simply want a connection, they want and need a full claim/full ownership of such individuals. For instance, some multiraicals are put off that Obama does not identify as solely multiracial. Some AAs are put off that Woods does not identify as solely AA. In fact, I’m sure there are some AAs who bristle at the fact that Obama has highlighted his diverse ancestry and experiences to the extent he has. I recall an AA woman, a host on an AA-centered radio show, who had quite a fit during the democratic primaries. A brief news story had just come out talking about Obama’s Irish roots – and in this woman’s eyes, this story was nothing more than an effort to say that a “Black man couldn’t be this intelligent and successful on his own” without “White blood.” I wondered what this woman’s reaction was this past St. Patrick’ Day when Obama made a brief mention of these same Irish roots at a press conference. Importantly, yes, I have heard some people – White supremacists actually – argue that Obama’s success owes to his “White blood.” But should the fact the some people think this warrant never talking about Obama’s mother’s side of the family?
We aren't talking about ownership here, at least I don't think we are. I mean, if a black person were to criticize another black person for dating a white person or hanging out with white people, that would seem to me an unjustified expression of ownership. But just saying that so-and-so is a member of my community by virtue of a common history of oppression, without denying that they're also a member of other communities as well?
And it's hard not to avoid the impression that in the case of Obama, some people are just pulling a variant of the "he's only successful because he's part white" game to which you referred. I've seen it said many times online. More insidiously, I think some people who aren't crass enough to say it out loud believe it. So I think African-Americans have reason to be concerned. One moment, people of mixed race are being touted as examples of black achievement, the next moment they're no longer black. Not a very good example for black kids, or anyone who sees the achievements of mixed-race and black Americans as something that represented a victory over racism rather than some sort of genetic calculus.
Anyway, I don't see the description of someone as a black American and a multiricial American are mutually exclusive. One means "part or fully SSA" according to the ODR, and the other means in this context part SSA. So where is the conflict? Only when we confuse one sense of the word "black" with another does there seem to be a conflict. But in fact Obama is
black according to the one drop rule
black according to the visible appearance rule
black by self-identification and ethnopolitical affiliation
mixed by race
mixed by color
mixed by parental race and color
and probably mostly white by culture and upbringing
From my perspective, all of these things can be and are true simultaneously, and I think most Americans know that, even if they sometimes forget as people are apt to that words are labels, not reality, and have multiple senses.
Quote:
My “moral perspective,” similar to what Frank said above, is that people must be afforded the right to identify as they see fit. It is not my place to tell them how to identify (just as it is not my place to tell them whom to date or marry, or where to live). Those that take it so personally how I (or anyone else) identify should ask themselves: Why would I not take my identity personally – after all, it is my ancestry and experiences. Finally, coming to mind is a man who identifies as "Asiatic" or "Moorish American." If you go to this link - http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06067/666764.stm - you will observe that ten times out of ten someone passing this man on the street would view/treat him as AA. With that said, how this man identifies is not something over which I will be losing any sleep.
I certainly wouldn't agree with those who assume you have to like a certain type of music or sit at a certain table because you're this or that. But I'm afraid I don't understand the logic of self-identification as it is applied to racial or ethnic classification. If I were to call myself Armenian even though I'm not Armenian, would that make me Armenian? It makes no sense to me.
I have a friend who is biracial and she cut her hair very short as the result of her friend having cancer and loosing her hair and her coworkers didn't know, why but she automatically became 'militant' or 'angry' in their eyes(white coworkers)
Whites 'one drop' in my opinion by their stereotyping
That's a great example. And it reinforces the impression I have that there are a lot of unspoken and unconscious prejudices even among those who don't consider themselves racist.
JoshH: Well, Colin Powell said, when discussing the Woods fracas, "In America, which I love from the depths of my heart and soul, when you look like me, you're black." That's not the sort of sentiment I'd get hot and bothered about. He's referring to a social reality, rather than something he created or that's of his own choosing.
This is an old argument, one that has been debated on this site ad nauseam (i.e., What does it mean to “look Black”? Does Woods “look Black” or does he “look Southeast Asian”?). I think that people should prepare/brace themselves for how others will view/treat them, but this does not mean that they must solely base their identities on this viewing/treatment.
Quote:
JoshH: We aren't talking about ownership here, at least I don't think we are.
Sorry, when some people attempt to force you into their group against your wishes, I’d say they in some way feel they have ownership over you. That you, as you have stated a couple of times, are not bothered with this is fine. However, understand that others are bothered by it (sorry, "hot and bothered" to use your words).
Quote:
JoshH: Anyway, I don't see the description of someone as a black American and a multiricial American are mutually exclusive.
Yes, and no. For Obama, I believe they are not mutually exclusive. He is “Black” or “AA” identified but open about his multiraciality (ancestry and experiences). For someone like Woods and many others, whether they call themselves “multiracial” or nothing at all, the two can be mutually exclusive.
Quote:
JoshH: But I'm afraid I don't understand the logic of self-identification as it is applied to racial or ethnic classification. If I were to call myself Armenian even though I'm not Armenian, would that make me Armenian? It makes no sense to me.
This is precisely the point, you don’t have to understand it. Meaning, I may think the man who identified as “Asiatic” or “Moorish American” is ridiculous (although in his case he did give an explanation). But, I feel no need to concern myself with it. As for you calling yourself Armenian or Chinese, yes, if neither one of these ethnicities is included in your recent history then I would find it a strange identity choice (but again, not my business). Let me try it this way, I am an American whose recent ancestry traces back to several countries in Europe, at least one nation in pre-Colombian North America, and several countries in Africa. I can be more specific or leave it at that. Either way, it’s my choice.
This is an old argument, one that has been debated on this site ad nauseam (i.e., What does it mean to “look Black”? Does Woods “look Black” or does he “look Southeast Asian”?). I think that people should prepare/brace themselves for how others will view/treat them, but this does not mean that they must solely base their identities on this viewing/treatment.
I agree, but is anyone demanding that?
Quote:
Sorry, when some people attempt to force you into their group against your wishes, I’d say they in some way feel they have ownership over you. That you, as you have stated a couple of times, are not bothered with this is fine. However, understand that others are bothered by it (sorry, "hot and bothered" to use your words).
I'm not sure why you say someone is trying to force me into a group. Rather, it seems to me that they're saying they think I belong to a group, the black according to the ODR group. And it's not something I can argue with, since I do. I can only argue with the racist assumptions that led to the creation of the group, or that the fading influence of the ODR makes use of "black" in the ODR sense confusing and obsolete, that sort of thing.
Quote:
Quote:
JoshH: Anyway, I don't see the description of someone as a black American and a multiricial American are mutually exclusive.
Yes, and no. For Obama, I believe they are not mutually exclusive. He is “Black” or “AA” identified but open about his multiraciality (ancestry and experiences). For someone like Woods and many others, whether they call themselves “multiracial” or nothing at all, the two can be mutually exclusive.
I don't see that, because one has to ignore the ODR/visible blackness sense in order to do so. And we as individuals don't have that option, language is a group endeavor.
Quote:
[Referring to self-identification] This is precisely the point, you don’t have to understand it. Meaning, I may think the man who identified as “Asiatic” or “Moorish American” is ridiculous (although in his case he did give an explanation). But, I feel no need to concern myself with it. As for you calling yourself Armenian or Chinese, yes, if neither one of these ethnicities is included in your recent history then I would find it a strange identity choice (but again, not my business). Let me try it this way, I am an American whose recent ancestry traces back to several countries in Europe, at least one nation in pre-Colombian North America, and several countries in Africa. I can be more specific or leave it at that. Either way, it’s my choice.
Sure, but by the same token, I can refer to myself as of Welsh descent without mentioning the Jewish, Spanish, Portuguese, African, and what have you aspects of my ancestry, and people are going to wonder why I have brown eyes and tan so well.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but I have an uncomfortable sense that some people want to ignore part of their heritage because it's socially inconvenient. (I'm not talking of course of those who believe as I do that "mixed" is a much more sensible category than a racist force fit into a bipolar category like white or black.)
Let us distinguish between factual inaccuracy and repugnant moralizing. First, factual inaccuracy.
JoshH wrote:
Posted: Sun 12 Jul 2009 23:11 -- from a moral perspective, I'm more kindly disposed towards those who emphasize the one drop rule because it was imposed on them than those who imposed it
JoshH suggests that current-day White Americans (not Black Americans) impose the ODR on current-day Black Americans. No evidence supports this notion and a great deal of scholarly opinion is to the contrary. Virtually every scholar who has investigated A-A support of the ODR has concluded (despite lack of peer-reviewed evidence) that today's A-As are more commited to imposing the ODR upon A-As than are today's Whites.
JoshH also suggests that in the past, the ODR was originally imposed upon the A-A community by Whites. This is also factually doubtful. Since the 1830s the ODR has been imposed by A-A leaders striving to compel solidarity. Whether the ODR was invented in the 1830s by Whites or by Blacks is hard to say, since the panicky reaction to the Nat Turner incident (White embrace of the ODR) was concurrent with the emergence of an A-A ethnopolitical community (Black embrace of the ODR). But there is no question that A-As have advocated the ODR more consistently over the past 180 years than have Whites. Indeed, during the Jim Crow era (the only period when the ODR was enforced by law), the ODR was never applied to an A-A family--not once. Instead, the only people accused of being secretly, unknowingly Black during the 1900-1930 wave of "racial" classification cases were White families.
Second, repugnant moralizing. This site limits moralizing value judgments to the two advocacy forums because moral debates are sterile. Each person's moral sense is formed in early childhood and is exceedingly hard to change in adulthood. But even when someone is totally committed to a moral position, as JoshH seems to be, it may be useful to point out how and why this position is repugnant to others.
JoshH wrote:
What is to prevent me from self-identifying as Chinese, even though I've no Chinese ancestry whatsoever?
Nothing prevents you. So what? You wish to be prevented from self-identifying as Chinese? So be it. You have the right to ask society, "Stop me from self-identitfying as Chinese." Others will likely ignore your plea, given that you are an adult and responsible for your own actions. But if you ask society, "Stop him from self-identitfying as Chinese," others are likely to react with hostility. Some might even say, "Just who the hell do you think you are to tell him which group allegiance he may not choose?" For example, if you were legally obligated to award a benefit to any random Chinese-American, and refused a claimant on the basis of your notions of that person's ancestry, and that person were supported by the local Chinese-American community, you would lose in court, you would be ordered to award the beneift, and you would probably be fined serious punitive damages. In short, you have the right to be intolerant of others' freedom of choice, but do it loudly and publicly enough and others will disapprove.
JoshH wrote:
Colin Powell said, "In America, which I love from the depths of my heart and soul, when you look like me, you're black."
If General Powell were to say this to a Puerto Rican of visible African ancestry, he would be seen as a racist bigot pure and simple. To cite this claim as exemplary does not persuade; it simply makes JoshH's position even more repugnant.
JoshH wrote:
Asian Americans aren't in the process of "losing" people ... just saying that so-and-so is a member of my community by virtue of a common history of oppression... I don't see the description of someone as a black American and a multiricial American are mutually exclusive ... And I certainly don't favor giving anyone, white or black, the right to insist that someone is something that they are not ...
JoshH repeatedly begs the question of what somebody "really is." For example, I am of significant subsaharan ancestry, yet I do not consider myself African-American, I have never considered myself A-A, and I do not plan to ever consider myself A-A. The implication that my refusal to embrace even the slightest shred of A-A self-identity somehow "loses people" to the A-A ethnopolitical voting bloc is irrational. The suggestion that I share a "common history of oppression" is a lie. The implication that if I consider myself multiracial I must also consider myself Black is intolerant. And the idea that JoshH or anyone has the right to decide whether I am claiming to be something that I am not is repulsive.
JoshH wrote:
...those who try to discard a portion of their heritage because it's socially inconvenient ...
JoshH has no way of guessing others' motivations. To suggest that people of mixed Afro-Euro ancestry (which factually includes one-third of White Americans and virtually all Latin Americans) reject an A-A self-identity because of wicked motives is ad hominem argument of the most blatant sort.
In short, JoshH is unlikely to become more tolerant of others' freedom of choice because of anything posted in this website. But he would be wise to imagine how his stance is seen by others who are more tolerant.
A demand? No, probably more of an implication that one has no choice in the matter, that one should accept that you are what you look like.
Quote:
JoshH: I'm not sure why you say someone is trying to force me into a group. Rather, it seems to me that they're saying they think I belong to a group, the black according to the ODR group. And it's not something I can argue with, since I do. I can only argue with the racist assumptions that led to the creation of the group, or that the fading influence of the ODR makes use of "black" in the ODR sense confusing and obsolete, that sort of thing.
We can go around and around on this. In the end, of course, I can’t stop someone who is dead set on saying, “You belong to my group, whether you like or not, and it’s based on the ODR.” However, I would likely seek out interactions with someone else, regardless of his or her background, that I believe would be more positive/respectful.
Quote:
JoshH: Sure, but by the same token, I can refer to myself as of Welsh descent without mentioning the Jewish, Spanish, Portuguese, African, and what have you aspects of my ancestry, and people are going to wonder why I have brown eyes and tan so well.
I don’t disagree, this is the problem. Labels, to varying degrees, can often obscure rather than illuminate.
Quote:
JoshH: Maybe I'm wrong here, but I have an uncomfortable sense that some people want to ignore part of their heritage because it's socially inconvenient. (I'm not talking of course of those who believe as I do that "mixed" is a much more sensible category than a racist force fit into a bipolar category like white or black.)
This seems very much like the oft-used charge of “You’re trying to escape from your ‘Blackness.’” (Again, this debate probably appears numerous places on this site). To be clear, while the reasons why people identify as they do can vary, there are indeed some people who seek to distance themselves from part of their heritage. Some might do this by never mentioning part of their heritage, while others might do this by going to extraordinary lengths to “prove” themselves or “fit in” with respect to the part of their ancestry they seek to highlight. Personally, I think the more people that acknowledge the diversity of their ancestry and experiences the better. However, not to be repetitive, but people’s lives are their own, so what can I say?
A demand? No, probably more of an implication that one has no choice in the matter, that one should accept that you are what you look like.
Do you mean in the sense of being identified with e.g. African-American culture when one's affinity is with Jamaican or European-American culture?
Quote:
We can go around and around on this. In the end, of course, I can’t stop someone who is dead set on saying, “You belong to my group, whether you like or not, and it’s based on the ODR.” However, I would likely seek out interactions with someone else, regardless of his or her background, that I believe would be more positive/respectful.
I think that's understandable. My own tendency I think is to wonder why someone feels this way, and to assume that there must be a reason, something that's important to this person. Which is one of the reasons I asked this question here. Not to mention that my own experience has been limited to online conversations; since my SAA ancestry isn't visible, and there isn't usually a reason to mention it, I've never had an African-American person mention the ODR rule to me in real life. I wouldn't presume to condemn out of hand the choices of others.
Quote:
This seems very much like the oft-used charge of “You’re trying to escape from your ‘Blackness.’” (Again, this debate probably appears numerous places on this site). To be clear, while the reasons why people identify as they do can vary, there are indeed some people who seek to distance themselves from part of their heritage. Some might do this by never mentioning part of their heritage, while others might do this by going to extraordinary lengths to “prove” themselves or “fit in” with respect to the part of their ancestry they seek to highlight. Personally, I think the more people that acknowledge the diversity of their ancestry and experiences the better. However, not to be repetitive, but people’s lives are their own, so what can I say?
Sure. And I don't think such choices are easy. I know that I've felt pressured to withhold information about my heritage, for example, when people started ripping into Jews without being aware that I'm half Jewish. And I've been troubled by the reaction I see when someone asks about my background in real life and I mention that I'm part black, to the extent that I find myself a bit reluctant to mention it. And that's small time stuff: I know that others face the prospect of real discrimination, and have to make choices accordingly. I would never condemn someone for protecting themselves from discrimination by others.
Let us distinguish between factual inaccuracy and repugnant moralizing. First, factual inaccuracy.
Hmmm. Since I neither hold nor have I expressed most of the opinions you've here attributed to me, and have no great desire to become enmeshed in animosities not my own, I'm wondering whether it make sense to reply. Probably not, but then, in one regard anyway, I'm more Hal than Falstaff: discretion has never been one of my strong points.
Quote:
JoshH wrote:
Posted: Sun 12 Jul 2009 23:11 -- from a moral perspective, I'm more kindly disposed towards those who emphasize the one drop rule because it was imposed on them than those who imposed it
JoshH suggests that current-day White Americans (not Black Americans) impose the ODR on current-day Black Americans. No evidence supports this notion and a great deal of scholarly opinion is to the contrary. Virtually every scholar who has investigated A-A support of the ODR has concluded (despite lack of peer-reviewed evidence) that today's A-As are more commited to imposing the ODR upon A-As than are today's Whites.
JoshH also suggests that in the past, the ODR was originally imposed upon the A-A community by Whites. This is also factually doubtful. Since the 1830s the ODR has been imposed by A-A leaders striving to compel solidarity. Whether the ODR was invented in the 1830s by Whites or by Blacks is hard to say, since the panicky reaction to the Nat Turner incident (White embrace of the ODR) was concurrent with the emergence of an A-A ethnopolitical community (Black embrace of the ODR). But there is no question that A-As have advocated the ODR more consistently over the past 180 years than have Whites. Indeed, during the Jim Crow era (the only period when the ODR was enforced by law), the ODR was never applied to an A-A family--not once. Instead, the only people accused of being secretly, unknowingly Black during the 1900-1930 wave of "racial" classification cases were White families.
Second, repugnant moralizing. This site limits moralizing value judgments to the two advocacy forums because moral debates are sterile. Each person's moral sense is formed in early childhood and is exceedingly hard to change in adulthood. But even when someone is totally committed to a moral position, as JoshH seems to be, it may be useful to point out how and why this position is repugnant to others.
I have never believed, nor have I stated, that the one drop rule was imposed by "current-day" white Americans. That is your interpolation.
I'm not a historian, indeed, much of the little that I know about the history of the ODR comes from reading your own papers, but I do know this -- that to suppose that support of the ODR among black Americans was not in essence a consequence of slavery, Jim Crow, and the ideology of racial superiority is to ignore the forest for the trees.
As it happens, I disagree with your contention that discussion of morality is sterile, or that moral attitudes stop developing in childhood. I've noticed within my own lifetime a sea change in moral attitudes towards many moral questions including sexuality and sexual orientation, race, and the role of women. While some of this change is generational I have also witnessed adult moral development, in both myself and others.
"Repugnancy" is a value judgment. While it does not bother me that you choose to make it, it is an opinion, and a fairly violent one, and I do not see that it serves a purpose to dress its expression in the garbs of utility.
Quote:
JoshH wrote:
What is to prevent me from self-identifying as Chinese, even though I've no Chinese ancestry whatsoever?
Nothing prevents you. So what? You wish to be prevented from self-identifying as Chinese? So be it. You have the right to ask society, "Stop me from self-identitfying as Chinese." Others will likely ignore your plea, given that you are an adult and responsible for your own actions. But if you ask society, "Stop him from self-identitfying as Chinese," others are likely to react with hostility. Some might even say, "Just who the hell do you think you are to tell him which group allegiance he may not choose?" For example, if you were legally obligated to award a benefit to any random Chinese-American, and refused a claimant on the basis of your notions of that person's ancestry, and that person were supported by the local Chinese-American community, you would lose in court, you would be ordered to award the beneift, and you would probably be fined serious punitive damages. In short, you have the right to be intolerant of others' freedom of choice, but do it loudly and publicly enough and others will disapprove.
Again, this doesn't seem to have very much to do with what I believe or said. Nowhere have I suggested that someone be required to self-identify as this or that. It is rather that, if one's self-identification is inaccurate, and known to be so, it is unlikely to be taken seriously. And if it is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as dishonest or self-serving, some will react negatively.
I wish to emphasize that I am not making a blanket moral statement here: there are times when misrepresentation of one's ancestry is justifiable under most moral codes, e.g., to escape the strictures of the Jim Crow era or extermination by the Nazis. And I am only talking about unintentional misrepresentation or inaccuracy. I personally find the notion that someone should be castigated for accurately referring to himself as mixed nonsensical.
Quote:
JoshH wrote:
Colin Powell said, "In America, which I love from the depths of my heart and soul, when you look like me, you're black."
If General Powell were to say this to a Puerto Rican of visible African ancestry, he would be seen as a racist bigot pure and simple. To cite this claim as exemplary does not persuade; it simply makes JoshH's position even more repugnant.
Most Puerto Ricans didn't grow up with the one drop rule, and will very likely not understand what Powell was saying, or why he was saying it. As far as I can tell, he was making a statement about American society and American perceptions, at least the perceptions with which he lived when he was growing up.
Quote:
JoshH wrote:
Asian Americans aren't in the process of "losing" people ... just saying that so-and-so is a member of my community by virtue of a common history of oppression... I don't see the description of someone as a black American and a multiricial American are mutually exclusive ... And I certainly don't favor giving anyone, white or black, the right to insist that someone is something that they are not ...
JoshH repeatedly begs the question of what somebody "really is." For example, I am of significant subsaharan ancestry, yet I do not consider myself African-American, I have never considered myself A-A, and I do not plan to ever consider myself A-A. The implication that my refusal to embrace even the slightest shred of A-A self-identity somehow "loses people" to the A-A ethnopolitical voting bloc is irrational.
I don't believe I ever mentioned rationality in this context, or suggested that I myself subscribe to a particular position. Indeed, the AA one dropper whose posts on another forum were instrumental in bringing me here posited an argument that I found fairly irrational, to whit, that if everyone who was of mixed race stopped identifying as black there would be no black people left. It did, however, tell me something about where he was coming from and what his concerns were.
Also, I think a fairly big difference between "black" as construed under the ODR and "African-American." I think most understand that "African-American" can refer to cultural traditions that not every black or part black American shares, or be inapplicable to some. I know that I would not describe my own African ancestry as African-American, unless perhaps I spaced and typed it on autopilot.
Quote:
The suggestion that I share a "common history of oppression" is a lie. The implication that if I consider myself multiracial I must also consider myself Black is intolerant. And the idea that JoshH or anyone has the right to decide whether I am claiming to be something that I am not is repulsive.
Another unfounded inference. As it happens, I do not often lie, and have not done so here. I do sometimes err, or express myself unclearly. That being said, I think my intended meaning here will be clear enough to anyone who genuinely wishes to see it. If I am wrong, I will gladly explain further.
I find myself more than a little surprised by your vehemence, particularly given that I have not come here as an advocate of the one drop rule, but as someone who was curious about its current status and who refuses, in the absence of evidence that it is justified, to issue a blanket condemnation of those African-Americans who still abide by it.
That being said, I find the notion that someone doesn't have the right to judge whether you're claiming to be something that you're not questionable, to say the least. To return to an earlier example, if I were to say I was Chinese, despite the fact that I have no detectable Chinese ancestry and that there is no evidence that I am Chinese, others would be well within their rights to conclude that my self-identification was erroneous. Indeed, it's hard to imagine that anyone would not make that judgment, although I imagine that some would be polite enough to keep their thoughts to themselves.
Quote:
JoshH wrote:
...those who try to discard a portion of their heritage because it's socially inconvenient ...
JoshH has no way of guessing others' motivations. To suggest that people of mixed Afro-Euro ancestry (which factually includes one-third of White Americans and virtually all Latin Americans) reject an A-A self-identity because of wicked motives is ad hominem argument of the most blatant sort.
Once again, your assertion seems to have more to do with your own concerns than with anything I've said or believe. I said "*those* who try to discard": I did not claim that any specific individual had that motive. By your apparent interpretation, the statement that "some defendants are guilty" is equivalent to the statement that a particular defendant is guilty, made in the absence of evidence. Obviously, it is not.
Quote:
In short, JoshH is unlikely to become more tolerant of others' freedom of choice because of anything posted in this website. But he would be wise to imagine how his stance is seen by others who are more tolerant.
You would have to point to a post in which I questioned or advocated the restraint of someone's freedom of choice. People are welcome to claim they're Martians, for all I care. People are welcome to claim /I'm/ a Martian. But in the former case at least, they're unlikely to be taken seriously.
If it is intolerant to disbelieve such a claim, or support the right of people to disbelieve such a claim, or the right of people to debate the merits of such a claim or express their opinions regarding such a claim, well, then I am intolerant, and proud to be so.
LOL! Well, White-identified English-speaking Americans average less than 1%, Melungeons and Redbones run about 5%, Argentines about 6%, and Puerto Ricans about 20%. So I am in the PR range. On the other hand, my mtDNA is Native American, so perhaps I should open a casino. <grin>
LOL! Well, White-identified English-speaking Americans average less than 1%, Melungeons and Redbones run about 5%, Argentines about 6%, and Puerto Ricans about 20%. So I am in the PR range. On the other hand, my mtDNA is Native American, so perhaps I should open a casino. <grin>
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
