Under the ''African derived Populations'' in the study it says:
"It is true that most of the african descendants had difficults intergrating into other populations,and they maintained there identity as an ethnic group''
"It is true that most of the african descendants had difficults intergrating into other populations,and they maintained there identity as an ethnic group'' Sound like a colorline toke place.
No. Read the entire paragraph, the prior paragraph, and the rest of the sentence that you quoted (after the word "but"): "but it is possible to assert that some of them mixed more or less freely, creating new social groups, the castes (castas)."
You are conflating ethnic self-identity with genetic discontinuity. Sans is contrasting Latin America with the U.S. She is pointing out that dichotomous Afro-Euro genetic separation has been maintained in the U.S. but not in Latin America. She is saying that, although Afro-Latinos originally maintained their ethnic identities (like Irish-Americans and German-Americans in the U.S.), they genetically assimilated into the population within a few generations (like Irish-Americans and German-Americans in the U.S.), in contrast to the discontinuous Afro-Euro admixture distribution in the U.S.
Genetic studies are not legal nor religious tracts, with multiple interpretations. Look at the report's raw data findings (the tables). There is no discontinuous genetic distribution anywhere in Latin America. Her data shows that, in the sense of endogamy, there is no color line in Latin America and never has been.
Of course, if by "color line" you mean something other than an endogamous barrier, then you must explain precisely what you mean by the term, in order for me to opine. For example, if by "color line" you mean a sense of shared ethnic identity, then yes there are many color lines in Latin America, and well over a hundred color lines in the United States.
P.S.: If you read Spanish, you might want to check the Spanish version of her report, since its text is less subject to interpretation and it is searchable.
I'm late in responding but I must emphasize a couple of points:
Diversity of opinion is welcome, provided those opinions are rendered respectfully, clearly, and in line with site rules and definitions. Opinions containing falsehoods or misstatements can (and have) been challenged and/or clarified. I appreciate the way in which this particular exchange was handled by all participants but one.
I've got no patience or tolerance for posters who wish to bring their racial or ethnic grievances to this forum. ImBack is particularly nasty in his derision towards African Americans. Most everyone can base dislike/hatred/contempt for a group of people on the actions of a few from the group, but I for one do not believe that anyone participating here needs to be subjected to another poster's unresolved personal issues with Blacks, Whites, mulattoes, griffes, Hapas, Italian Americans, Latinos, or any other group on the basis of bad behavior of a few people in those respective ethnic groups or nations. Go get some therapy, a punching bag, a hug, or martial arts lessons. Or don't, but do refrain from bringing that crap here. It's juvenile and it tarnishes the perspectives of people who may be sympathetic to the perspective but cannot abide by the polemics. Futhermore, ImBack has been posting here for years and has little to no self-control, despite what our rules call for in these discussions. If s/he acts this aggressively and boorishly in real life I am beginning to suspect that the problem s/he has in getting along with other people is hardly the existence of ODR or Blacks in any social position. I sense a familiar need to scapegoat, usually along racial or ethnic lines, when one's own life isn't what one would wish it to be. In that sense, ImBack's ranting and raving is indistinguishable from that of a downtrodden working class German in the 1920s needing an outlet (and a demagogue to follow). That's quite a common problem within the human race. If labels and racialism could alleviate that problem then I would hop on the bandwagon in an instant.
For the record, I suspect that the majority of USAmericans have tacit approval/acceptance of the ODR, a minority would apply it narrowly to most people with visible Africanized features (excluding Arabs and some people who speak Spanish or Portuguese), another sliver would apply it broadly to all partially non-White people, and another minority thinks it's crazy and would abolish it.
I think, like other perspectives that are socially progressive, the right to self-identification and freedom from ascribed racial and ethnic identities is a perspective that more and more young people will adhere to.
Personally I believe that one should have to choice whether to acknowledge any aspect or a multicontinental (I'm not using multiracial anymore...been trying to get rid of that notion in my head so this is the substitute I've come up with) or multiethnic heritage. It's another matter whether the members of the acknowledged group return the acknowledgment, but there are few instances in which their anointment of one's legitimacy would matter. It would depend on how much one needed to participate the broader community. The bottom line is that I can call myself whatever I wish, but formal (legal) legitimacy may elude me if I have no "blood," familial or residential ties. To that I say "so what?" It's still my right to consider myself whatever the hell I think feels right. I also have the right to change that at any time.
"It is true that most of the african descendants had difficults intergrating into other populations,and they maintained there identity as an ethnic group'' Sound like a colorline toke place.
No. Read the entire paragraph, the prior paragraph, and the rest of the sentence that you quoted (after the word "but"): "but it is possible to assert that some of them mixed more or less freely, creating new social groups, the castes (castas)."
You are conflating ethnic self-identity with genetic discontinuity. Sans is contrasting Latin America with the U.S. She is pointing out that dichotomous Afro-Euro genetic separation has been maintained in the U.S. but not in Latin America. She is saying that, although Afro-Latinos originally maintained their ethnic identities (like Irish-Americans and German-Americans in the U.S.), they genetically assimilated into the population within a few generations (like Irish-Americans and German-Americans in the U.S.), in contrast to the discontinuous Afro-Euro admixture distribution in the U.S.
Genetic studies are not legal nor religious tracts, with multiple interpretations. Look at the report's raw data findings (the tables). There is no discontinuous genetic distribution anywhere in Latin America. Her data shows that, in the sense of endogamy, there is no color line in Latin America and never has been.
Of course, if by "color line" you mean something other than an endogamous barrier, then you must explain precisely what you mean by the term, in order for me to opine. For example, if by "color line" you mean a sense of shared ethnic identity, then yes there are many color lines in Latin America, and well over a hundred color lines in the United States.
P.S.: If you read Spanish, you might want to check the Spanish version of her report, since its text is less subject to interpretation and it is searchable.
Thanks Frank, though i dont speak spanish. I wonder why there is a difference between the two reports?
btw, did you get my emails from a few weeks back? just curious.
I wonder why there is a difference between the two reports?
Not a big difference. Monica's native language is Spanish and things sometimes get confused in translation. The best translators are not always the best molecular anthropologists. But it is not a serious problem. The main reason I suggested the Spanish version is simply because the PDF is searchable, whereas the English PDF is not. (I do not know why.)
cjohns48233305 wrote:
did you get my emails from a few weeks back? just curious.
I think so. I just have not been able to get to them. We just switched mail servers, so things have been a bit hectic.
Posted: Fri 17 Jul 2009 22:36 Post subject: Re: THE ONE DROP RULE IS DYING FAST.
ImBack wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
ImBack wrote:
Quote:
But if a Biracial person is beaten up it's probably because the agressor was jealous or insecure and didn't like Biracials.
Yes, that is how MOST BLACKS ARE.
That is a pretty nasty generalization, ImBack. Please re-read rule 2.7. First warning.
Frank, you will probably ban me. I think I've gone too far. But I can't help myself but tell the truth. They can beat on us all they want but I can't take the gloves off apparently. I'm telling the truth. I'd get my *ss beaten or very well killed by the Blacks in my area for saying I was White. That's no joke. And I live in a "liberal" area. Great. I have to live in constant fear of these criminal maniacs and I can't even say the truth.
Posted: Mon 20 Jul 2009 10:18 Post subject: Re: THE ONE DROP RULE IS DYING FAST.
cjohns48233305 wrote:
ImBack wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
ImBack wrote:
Quote:
But if a Biracial person is beaten up it's probably because the agressor was jealous or insecure and didn't like Biracials.
Yes, that is how MOST BLACKS ARE.
That is a pretty nasty generalization, ImBack. Please re-read rule 2.7. First warning.
Frank, you will probably ban me. I think I've gone too far. But I can't help myself but tell the truth. They can beat on us all they want but I can't take the gloves off apparently. I'm telling the truth. I'd get my *ss beaten or very well killed by the Blacks in my area for saying I was White. That's no joke. And I live in a "liberal" area. Great. I have to live in constant fear of these criminal maniacs and I can't even say the truth.
Seek therapy.
Why don't you solve my problem for me and get on the first boat back to Africa?
I've got no patience or tolerance for posters who wish to bring their racial or ethnic grievances to this forum.
So get off then, since that's your business here as well.
ImBack is particularly nasty in his derision towards African Americans.
African Americans are particularly nasty in their treatment towards us.
Most everyone can base dislike/hatred/contempt for a group of people on the actions of a few from the group,
But when its nearly all of them and the tear-eyed psychotherapist is apologizing for their criminality it gets kind of annoying, yes.
but I for one do not believe that anyone participating here needs to be subjected to another poster's unresolved personal issues with Blacks, Whites, mulattoes, griffes, Hapas, Italian Americans, Latinos, or any other group on the basis of bad behavior of a few people in those respective ethnic groups or nations.
How come you get to make assumptions and personal attacks but I can't?
Go get some therapy, a punching bag, a hug, or martial arts lessons. Or don't, but do refrain from bringing that crap here.
How come you get to make assumptions and personal attacks but I can't?
It's juvenile and it tarnishes the perspectives of people who may be sympathetic to the perspective but cannot abide by the polemics.
If it's so juevenile then why don't you ignore it? You can't stand up to me in a debate and neither can any of the other liars here. Personal attacks and red-herrings are your only recourse, face it. You apologist. NOBODY AGREES WITH ME EXCEPT AD. Most of the rest of you are too scared, or, dare I say it, too disingenous.
Futhermore, ImBack has been posting here for years and has little to no self-control, despite what our rules call for in these discussions.
You're right I really don't. I think that's obvious. So what?
If s/he acts this aggressively and boorishly in real life I am beginning to suspect that the problem s/he has in getting along with other people is hardly the existence of ODR or Blacks in any social position.
More apologies, cry me a river. You know two little 10-year-old negros tried to start a fight with me a couple of weeks ago for skating down the sidewalk? Apologize for that, please! Oh, and maybe you can explain away the 40% Black imprisonment rate, tendency towards violence, and persistantly low IQ??? hmmmm? I know, blame it on Whitey.
I sense a familiar need to scapegoat, usually along racial or ethnic lines, when one's own life isn't what one would wish it to be.
Yea that's it. Whites do the finger-pointing and Blacks do the beating, that's the way it works. Doesn't change the fact youre still guilty.
In that sense, ImBack's ranting and raving is indistinguishable from that of a downtrodden working class German in the 1920s needing an outlet (and a demagogue to follow).
More personal attacks apologist. This is pure nonsense. You know I'm right, but youre so immoral you don't care. That's fine, I expect it.
ImBack: If you hold true to your user name, calm down and act like an adult or you'll be gone again. Take it somewhere else, not here. Everyone but you can see it, apparently.
The problem with the ODR and use of current categories is that these AA statistics include millions of cross-colorline mixed people, people with negligible Afro admixture, as well as MGMs with visible Euro admixture and/or non-Black ancestors within the last 3 generations. So if the "we" that you reference in your response includes those folks (and I don't know why it wouldn't), perhaps it would be more worthwhile to spend your time and energy uplifting "your people" who languish in prisons, commit violent crimes, take drugs, display the achievement gap, and cannot effectively parent their children.
More personal attacks apologist. This is pure nonsense. You know I'm right, but youre so immoral you don't care. That's fine, I expect it.
Blacks are immoral, you're proof of that.
I've refrained from responding to your accusations since I didn't think I could do so within the forum rules, and will continue to do so. However, when you return from banishment, perhaps you will explain to me how it is that blacks are immoral, while whites, who gave us Auschwitz, sold people at auction, and some of the wealthiest of whom are currently robbing the American public blind are not.
As far as I can tell, amorality is found in all groups, but condemned more severely in the have-nots than the haves. Which is to say that a junkie goes to prison for stealing a $200 car radio; a middle class person is considered one of the guys if he steals $200 by exaggerating his tax deductions; and a Wall Streeter who destroys his bank through irresponsible speculation, sticks the public with the bill, and then awards himself a bonus that's more than most people earn in a lifetime is deemed a pillar of the community. And of course it never hurts that somebody looks different than we do, it being a standard feature of human nature that the closer someone seems ethnically and genetically, the more innocent he is, and the farther, the more obviously guilty.
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.
He's right. At least in that most people who are currently "black" would no longer be "black," but mixed as well because most of them have both African and European ancestry. And along with 1/3 of "white" persons who would no longer be "white" people, but mixed as well because of their African ancestry. If all Americans identified according to their ancestry alone, then "mixed African-European" would be as common or more common than "white" (or entirely European).
JoshH wrote:
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.
JoshH wrote:
If I were to call myself Armenian even though I'm not Armenian, would that make me Armenian? It makes no sense to me.
You make an useful distinction between matters of genetic ancestry and matters of cultural identification. You are correct that you can not change your genetic ancestry despite your wishes. Genetic ancestry is what you are calling race here, right? And you are also correct that you can, more or less, choose the culture group(s) you choose to identify with. Such groups are what you refer to here as "ethnopolitical affinity," right?
You will never have Armenian or Chinese genetic ancestry simply because you choose it, but you can culturally become Armenian or Chinese if you move to one of those places, learn the culture at the level of a local and embrace it as your own. Others may or may not accept your decision.
American blackness, however, is unique because it is not really just a genetic ancestry or a culture. It is generally the case that if one looks a certain way they are socially pressured to accept that they are "black" whether they have any sense of cultural identification with a "black" identity or not. Similarly, if they do not look that certain way they are not allowed to be "black" even if they wish to identify as such culturally (consider the supposed ridiculousness of comedian Jamie Kennedy's character B-rad). Even so, "black" and "white" is not about one's genetic ancestry, per se, but loosely involves certain identifiable morphological characteristics.
So, the matter of whether or not one can or should be allowed to choose if they are "black" or "white" is quite a bit more complex of a question then is determined by either genetic ancestry or cultural identification alone.
JoshH wrote:
while whites, who gave us Auschwitz, sold people at auction, and some of the wealthiest of whom are currently robbing the American public blind are not.
As far as I can tell, amorality is found in all groups, but condemned more severely in the have-nots than the haves. Which is to say that a junkie goes to prison for stealing a $200 car radio; a middle class person is considered one of the guys if he steals $200 by exaggerating his tax deductions; and a Wall Streeter who destroys his bank through irresponsible speculation, sticks the public with the bill, and then awards himself a bonus that's more than most people earn in a lifetime is deemed a pillar of the community.
I agree with you that amorality is found in all groups, but it makes as much sense to attribute Auschwitz to "whites" (or Europeans) as it does to attribute Rwanda and Darfur to "blacks" (or Africans). And historically, "blacks" (Africans) did sell people as much so as did "whites" (Europeans). Henry Louis Gates profiles the selling of human beings by Africans in the PBS series Wonders of The African World - The Slave Kingdoms. Similarly, there are "blacks" engaged in the sort of activity that you refer to as "robbing." And there are both very wealthy and very poor Americans who call themselves both "black" and "white," and who appear both quite dark and quite light.
Please tell me if I'm wrong, but your comments here seem to me as suggestive that you feel that "whites" are somehow collectively more so guilty of amorality then are "blacks."
JoshH wrote:
And of course it never hurts that somebody looks different than we do, it being a standard feature of human nature that the closer someone seems ethnically and genetically, the more innocent he is, and the farther, the more obviously guilty.
This exclusion of "the other" happens both ways in the black-white dyad, and works in very different ways for persons who refuse to choose either side as well.
while whites, who gave us Auschwitz, sold people at auction, and some of the wealthiest of whom are currently robbing the American public blind are not.
As far as I can tell, amorality is found in all groups, but condemned more severely in the have-nots than the haves. Which is to say that a junkie goes to prison for stealing a $200 car radio; a middle class person is considered one of the guys if he steals $200 by exaggerating his tax deductions; and a Wall Streeter who destroys his bank through irresponsible speculation, sticks the public with the bill, and then awards himself a bonus that's more than most people earn in a lifetime is deemed a pillar of the community.
I agree with you that amorality is found in all groups, but it makes as much sense to attribute Auschwitz to "whites" (or Europeans) as it does to attribute Rwanda and Darfur to "blacks" (or Africans). And historically, "blacks" (Africans) did sell people as much so as did "whites" (Europeans). Henry Louis Gates profiles the selling of human beings by Africans in the PBS series Wonders of The African World - The Slave Kingdoms. Similarly, there are "blacks" engaged in the sort of activity that you refer to as "robbing." And there are both very wealthy and very poor Americans who call themselves both "black" and "white," and who appear both quite dark and quite light.
Please tell me if I'm wrong, but your comments here seem to me as suggestive that you feel that "whites" are somehow collectively more so guilty of amorality then are "blacks."
I had intended to make a qualitative point about selection bias on the original poster's part rather than a quantitative argument regarding the morality of blacks vs. whites. To assert that whites are morally inferior to blacks would I think be to make an ycallaf of his fallacy. I'm not even sure how one could establish a metric for morality, given that moral standards vary, and that even within a given moral framework there's no precise method of weighting offenses.
Please tell me if I'm wrong, but your comments here seem to me as suggestive that you feel that "whites" are somehow collectively more so guilty of amorality then are "blacks."
I had intended to make a qualitative point about selection bias on the original poster's part rather than a quantitative argument regarding the morality of blacks vs. whites. To assert that whites are morally inferior to blacks would I think be to make an ycallaf of his fallacy. I'm not even sure how one could establish a metric for morality, given that moral standards vary, and that even within a given moral framework there's no precise method of weighting offenses.
Then I interpreted those comments wrong. You were not meaning to suggest that "whites" were less moral then "blacks" but only to emphasize that the opposite is not the case. Is that correct?
Then I interpreted those comments wrong. You were not meaning to suggest that "whites" were less moral then "blacks" but only to emphasize that the opposite is not the case. Is that correct?
I think that your point was clear and good. It was the context that confused me, and the relation of these comments to discussions that we have had in other threads.
I read all posts, but it is hard to answer the to all of the points.
The title of the thread is:
Contemporary Views of ODR.
Really, there is not now and never was ODR when it came to people making that choice for themselves. Some people choose what they wanted to be depending on their looks.
There is no way to find an accurate percentage of people who fell under ODR then or even now. There is no true study on this, LOL!
Never was.
How many people who would, under ODR look White Amer. , as pure White as Queen Elizabeth, but have gone as White Amer. ? Don't you think White European Q.E. II is White enough!
People then or even now who are "passing for White , Pa sa' Blanc" ARE NOT going to say if they are Black Amer. or not or how much BA they have or where it came in down the line . That is the point of passing!!!
What proof do I have?
Only personal stories that are very common from my region.
A grandfather's sister was seen on day, and the next day, she was not seen or heard from again.
Another grandparent married a Black person,blueblack, and the rest of that grandparent's siblings family went to CA as White.
If these people were alive today, they would be in the early 100's,105 and up.
Needless to say,their descendants are White Amer. and probably do not know .
Next age group, people in their 70's, 80's today.
I know of a family member who said another family member's laws would shun her in the 50's because they were passing working as White in N.O.
A case you have on record like this is the Anatole Broyard case.
In the 1950's, 1960's many Creole N.O.left and went to CA. They went to be White. They went for better job opportunities. They went for a chance to just blend and not live under segregation.
Everybody of Creole descendant in N.O. has relatives in CA.
The people in their 70's, 80's stayed in touch there and with their relatives in N.O. As each generation moves on, I find there is less contact and those people's grandkids, great -grandkids have moved on and as White.
I know of cousins and old friends who are living as White today. They married White.They list White on papers. They know you in personal family/oldfriends settings. These are people aged 35 to 55.
Their lives are compartmentalized. So be it. Your choice is how I look at it. I don't break my neck knowing them either.Whatever.
So way back then to now, what is there a card like a license to carry to prove ODR? No. Nobody knows now unless you make that choice. Nobody knew then unless you made that choice.
Your look,White,Black,Hispanic,makes the choice for you according to what people see.
People then or even now who are "passing for White , Pa sa' Blanc" ARE NOT going to say if they are Black Amer. or not or how much BA they have or where it came in down the line . That is the point of passing!!!
Or maybe they weren't/aren't passing. Maybe they weren't/aren't "black" at all. Maybe they really were/are "white" people, even if they had some African ancestry.
Creole GAL wrote:
So way back then to now, what is there a card like a license to carry to prove ODR? No. Nobody knows now unless you make that choice. Nobody knew then unless you made that choice.
Your look,White,Black,Hispanic,makes the choice for you according to what people see.
But you do have a choice as to whether you accept that choice of others.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
Personal attacks and red-herrings are your only recourse, face it. You apologist. NOBODY AGREES WITH ME EXCEPT AD. Most of the rest of you are too scared, or, dare I say it, too disingenous.
