3.3.10 one-drop rule — The principle that membership in the U.S. Black endogamous group is based upon having any African ancestry at all, no matter how distant or invisible. Specifically, it is the idea that a person of utterly European appearance and White self-identity is involuntarily Black due merely to having “one drop” of known African ancestry, no matter how ancient, and is merely “passing for White.” The one-drop rule is the most extreme manifestation of hypodescent. Hence, all cases of one-drop rule are also examples of hypodescent, but the reverse is not true; not all cases of hypodescent (calling a first generation biracial invidivual “Black,” for example) are examples of the one-drop rule.
eramusinfinity wrote:
My point being that a person who uses the phrase "blacks come in many colors" is, in fact, one dropping regardless of whether they are aware of it, intending to do so, meaning the phrase only as a gesture of inclusion, or whatever.
According to the site definition this statement is very misleading. To one-drop a person is to ascribe to them an ethnic or racial identity and to insist that this individual is Black no matter what the person believes his or herself to be. When you look at a family picture and see a group of Black people who range in skinshades from creamy pearl to lustrous mahogany, the simple fact is these people all consider themselves to be a member of the Black endogamous group. The point is that no one has forced them to be a member of that group. I have relatives who would be surprised to learn that they are not accepted members of their Black churches, Black neighborhoods and aren't cooking foods commonly served by Blacks at their dinner tables every night.
There are White people with SSA admixture who are not members of the Black ethnic group. To one-drop these people (or anyone else with SSA admixture) is to insist that they really do belong to the Black endogamous group because of their SSA admixture. I am not one-dropping my great-grandfather when I call him Black because that's what he considered himself to be. He also had sense enough to know that his ethnic identity did not define his entire genetic makeup, which was mostly European from the looks of him.
One-drop(ping) can easily become a catchphrase that signifies more than the involuntary assignment of a Black racial or ethnic identity or an extreme form of hypodescent. We ought to take more care. The term has a specific historical context.
Wholesale objection to the phrase "Blacks come in all colors," is the flipside of the coin and, like most absolutes, misses the nuances that remain important to consider. The fact is that there are Black people who are virtually (or maybe even completely) European genetically and 100% Black in their cultural orientation. I don't mean they "became" Black, I mean they were raised in the culture and it's what they know, love and are accepted members of. If the rebuttal to this is "yeah but some Blacks don't accept them" I'd laugh and say that some Blacks don't accept any Blacks deemed to step out of line culturally, and this lack of acceptance based on skin color is only one manifestation of it. It's an important one, but it isn't the only determinant of ethnic acceptance, and Black people who are found to speak/dress/worship/eat "too White" (for example) could relay this sentiment ad nauseum.
It's also interesting: Whites do (or will one day) come in all colors. Latinos, Arabs, East and South Asians may gain acceptance as Whites in the future, if they haven't in some quarters already. If I'm a South Asian looking at pictures of my White family and see a broad range of skinshades (due to exogamy with Europeans as well as internal variation) won't it be accurate to say that Whites come in all colors one day? Maybe some member of the KKK won't accept that, but would that negate the accuracy of the statement?
It seems to me that this site's definition of the ODR and my point, both of which you quoted above, are suited to a T. The statement that "black people come in all colors" is not a statement of identification. It is a statement about what "blackness" supposedly is - a thing that has many colors, whilst certain other things don't. Please take into consideration the following points that I have made-
erasmusinfinity wrote:
The notion that "black people come in all colors" is specifically meant to imply that "blackness" consists of persons with complete African ancestry, and also persons with some African ancestry and some degree or combination of some other.
Two more critical points are implicit in the phrase "black people come in all colors."
1. "White" people do not come in a variety of colors. They are defined as something which is entirely "white" or pure.
2. Anyone who is anything but entirely "white" goes in the category that involves "all colors" which is "black."
Perhaps you feel that these three implications are not present in the phrase "black people come in many colors." If so, which points do you feel are not present and why?
Perhaps you agree that these implications are present in the phrase but that they are meant only to apply to those who voluntarily choose to embrace them and are not necessarily to be put on others. In other words, that we can embrace the one drop rule for ourselves without imposing it upon others. Does this better characterize your position?
sagascend wrote:
There are White people with SSA admixture who are not members of the Black ethnic group.
The phrase "black people come in all colors" is suggestive of a perspective that regards such people as passing(Ref. above: "White" people do not come in a variety of colors. They are defined as something which is entirely "white" or pure.) and that they are actually "black" because that is the "comes in all colors" group.
As further support of this point, consider that we do not anywhere in society hear the phrase "white people come in all colors." And that if as a society we were to operate by such parameters that "white" people came in all colors there would be no point in anyone making such a statement as "black people come in all colors" because coming in all colors would be nothing so special.
sagascend wrote:
The fact is that there are Black people who are virtually (or maybe even completely) European genetically and 100% Black in their cultural orientation. I don't mean they "became" Black, I mean they were raised in the culture and it's what they know, love and are accepted members of.
This supports my point. "Black" is all the all inclusive label. It only takes a drop to belong. This is not the case with the flip-side label of "white." "Blacks" come in all colors. "Whites" do not come in all colors. One drop makes you "black"... the one drop rule defined.
The statement that "black people come in all colors" is not a statement of identification. It is a statement about what "blackness" supposedly is - a thing that has many colors, whilst certain other things don't.
Of course it can be a statement of ethnic identification. I'll post an example:
"You don't look Black to me."
"But's that's what I am - Black people come in all colors."
Exchange "Black" for "American" or any other nationality or ethnicity - that's the meaning in this context.
The assumption that this phrase signifies one and only one idea belies the many contexts in which it is used. There is no implication of what "certain other things" mean - that's reading into the statement as well as the intent of the rhetor, which has to be considered in order to read the statement accurately. And reading in (i.e., imposing one's view/making assumptions) is antithetical to the notion that people ought to define their own identity and very much compatible with the notion that there are "right" and "wrong" ways for a person to identify. As such, the only difference between a one-dropper and a person who would like "color correct" identification is the labels used.
I'd disagree with the accuracy of your first point about White purity. The "White" ethnic or racial label hardly implies "purity." Many White people proudly discuss their Native American heritage; multicontinental East Asian-European Whites are accepted as Whites; South Asians and Arabs are as well (though some reject the label). The "White" ethnic and racial label, however, has frequently excluded Whites with known SSA ancestry - the ODR - especially if that SSA ancestry comes from African American ancestors or they do not have a Spanish/Portuguese surname.
Latinos and Arabs with with known, significant SSA ancestry are not automatically one-dropped either, so the second point you make is not accurate.
There are explicit exceptions to the implicit rules that govern the way you read the statement. There is the notion of freedom of identity, which is a double-edged sword when it comes to the Black ethnic group. Just like some feminists believe that women who choose to become stay-at-home mothers are buying into patriarchy and aren't making a free choice, activists for a new racial order in the U.S. see the avowal of a Black identity by people with significantly European ancestry, appearance or genetic background as buying into the ODR and neglecting free choice. You are correct in concluding that I believe that people can embrace identities for themselves that others in similar circumstances are free to reject.
erasmusinfinity wrote:
The phrase "black people come in all colors" is suggestive of a perspective that regards such people as passing
I think this is a stretch. Where are the words that signify intent to pass or deny freedom of identity in this statement? This phrase has to be put in context in order for intent to be known. Even to highlight what might be suggested - how can you divorce such a "loaded" phrase from its rhetorical context and hope to distill some universal meaning that is then merely "suggested" and "implied?" In particular, there is no need to split hairs on the use of this phrase when people who regard White people with SSA ancestry as Blacks who are "passing" are quite happy to use the explicit term "passing" or similar (pejorative, usually) terminology.
The phrase is a shorthand explanation of the phenomenon of the wide diversity of appearance within the Black endogamous group in the United States. This diversity is largely attributable to imposition of the ODR several generations ago, but now the AA ethnic group sustains itself through cultural/familial ties that have forged in successive generations as well as pro-racialist political activism. To understand what might be suggestive in its use requires an examination of the context in which it is used as well as the intent in uttering it.
erasmusinfinity wrote:
As further support of this point, consider that we do not anywhere in society hear the phrase "white people come in all colors." And that if as a society we were to operate by such parameters that "white" people came in all colors there would be no point in anyone making such a statement as "black people come in all colors" because coming in all colors would be nothing so special
That's a matter of time. Whiteness is a club that always expands in the U.S., and there's evidence that that the books are open for Asians and Latinos. These groups also come in all colors, as it were. Coming in all colors is and has never been special. Humans have come in all colors for thousands upon thousands of years. Humans from different continental groups have been blending for ages and ages. It's even less special in the U.S., as an extremely diverse nation of people. I think it is clear from the continued ethnic policing among AAs and the largely self-sustaining multicontinental AA group (Blacks outmarry at very low rates) that the term's relevance is in no way dependent on how the White ethnic group expands, unless SSA ancestry among Whites becomes acceptable, B/W intermarriage increases signifcantly and the colorline in this country disappears.
Of course it can be a statement of ethnic identification. I'll post an example:
"You don't look Black to me."
"But's that's what I am - Black people come in all colors."
Exchange "Black" for "American" or any other nationality or ethnicity - that's the meaning in this context.
"That's what I am" is the statement of identification. "Black people come in all colors" is a description of the thing to which one does or does not identify. It is not, by any stretch, making a statement to the effect that one does or does not identify with anything. In grammatical terms, "black people" is an object and "all colors" is a quality.
sagascend wrote:
And reading in (i.e., imposing one's view/making assumptions) is antithetical to the notion that people ought to define their own identity and very much compatible with the notion that there are "right" and "wrong" ways for a person to identify. As such, the only difference between a one-dropper and a person who would like "color correct" identification is the labels used.
I couldn't care less about color correct labels. I have been discussing the the phrase "blacks come in all colors." If it is the case that you feel that "black" identity is threatened by the possibility of a role being played by the ODR in the formulation of that identity, then I would like to remind you that I am not in any way advocating anything here. Whatever contradictions may reveal themselves due to a reasoned examination of the parameters surrounding an identity can not be reasonably regarded as cases of me not respecting an identity choice.
sagascend wrote:
I'd disagree with the accuracy of your first point about White purity. The "White" ethnic or racial label hardly implies "purity."
Sticking to the topic of the African-European genetic ancestry spectrum, someone with the appearance of, say, Michael Jordan or Wesley Snipes would not be regarded by most Americans as being "white" even if they culturally identified as such and wished to be regarded as such. Persons with European and Native American admixture and Latinos, Arabs, etc. who are generally regarded, by most Americans, as something ambiguously outside of the black-white American dyad do not pertain to this topic.
Of course, historically the terms "white" and "black" were quite specifically labels of social purity and impurity and not meaningfully labels about (but perhaps abstractly and vaguely) appearance. "White" persons have never been particularly white, but actually various shades of peach, plum, etc. "Black" persons have come "in all colors" since the emergence of the one drop rule as it developed across the 19th century. Before the emergence of the ODR, persons who were known to be of mixed African and European lineage were catagorized according to seperate labels other then "black." Indeed, "black" persons were not thought to come in all colors.
Sagascend wrote:
You are correct in concluding that I believe that people can embrace identities for themselves that others in similar circumstances are free to reject.
Given that wording, I also believe that people can embrace identities for themselves that others in similar circumstances are free to reject. People can not and should not be coerced (I do not mean this as a means of advocating any position in this thread, but only as a means of insuring that I am not misrepresented). Anyway, if I were to think otherwise I would not try to argue it on this forum because I recognize that it against forum rules.
That being said, I do think that there is a contradiction between an identity that depends upon the ODR, illustrated by the phrase "black people come in all colors," and the logic that allows for freedom of choice. And I think that this reason lies at the heart of why many "black" identifying Americans oppose mixed race identities so fervently.
Sagascend wrote:
erasmusinfinity wrote:
The phrase "black people come in all colors" is suggestive of a perspective that regards such people as passing
I think this is a stretch. Where are the words that signify intent to pass or deny freedom of identity in this statement?
As I elaborated above-
erasmusinfinity wrote:
consider that we do not anywhere in society hear the phrase "white people come in all colors." And that if as a society we were to operate by such parameters that "white" people came in all colors there would be no point in anyone making such a statement as "black people come in all colors" because coming in all colors would be nothing so special.
-----
Sagascend wrote:
This diversity is largely attributable to imposition of the ODR several generations ago, but now the AA ethnic group sustains itself through cultural/familial ties that have forged in successive generations as well as pro-racialist political activism.
What do you mean by post racialist here? Do you mean post-segregation era / post Jim Crow? The very concept of whiteness strikes me, in and of itself, as racialist. Unless we are dreaming of a future "white" cultural identity that embraces the likes of Michael Jordan and Wesley Snipes. And, fringe "black" purists notwithstanding, it strikes me that informed "blacks" have understood themselves to "come in all colors" since the advent and progression of the one drop rule.
erasmusinfinity wrote:
That's a matter of time. Whiteness is a club that always expands in the U.S., and there's evidence that that the books are open for Asians and Latinos.
Indeed. And perhaps, one day the "white" label will include persons with strong noticeable African ancestry (Michael Jordan and Wesley Snipes even). But as long as there is a concept of purity there will always be a concept of impurity, regardless of what it is called and regardless of who is on the inside and who is on the outside.
Sagascend wrote:
Coming in all colors is and has never been special.
That's what I am" is the statement of identification. "Black people come in all colors" is a description of the thing to which one does or does not identify. It is not, by any stretch, making a statement to the effect that one does or does not identify with anything. In grammatical terms, "black people" is an object and "all colors" is a quality.
The entire statement is one of (self) identification. The phrase within the statement is indeed a characterization of the varied appearance of ethnic group to which the person identifies. That’s precisely why it makes little sense to remove the context in which it is used to suggest that 1) it’s a statement about passing 2) its relevance depends on whether Whites come in all colors or how “pure” whiteness is considered.
erasmusinfinity wrote:
I couldn't care less about color correct labels. I have been discussing the the phrase "blacks come in all colors."
This topic comes up frequently on this site and, over the years, two basic opposing arguments have arisen. One is that the statement is a reflection of reality: The AA ethnic group was forged due to the ODR, so people who self-identify as Blacks run the Afro-Euro spectrum. The other is that, because the legacy of the ODR continues to deny many of partially AA descent as well as U.S. residents with SSA ancestry the right to self-identify and also encourages the application of the term “Black” to people with visual multicontinental heritage, it ought to apply only to a narrower group of Blacks. Posters who have racialist and non-racialist perspectives are on both sides. It’s with that historical context that I approach this topic. If you feel implicated, that’s unfortunate, because I do not know or care how you’d label anyone personally, though should you offer a perspective it would be an interesting side comment. Also, my response addresses the general group, as the site rules suggest every poster should strive to do. I’m quite capable of addressing you or other posters personally, though, and I also have no problem asking a direct question to ascertain a point-of-view. I hope that clears it up.
erasmusinfinity wrote:
If it is the case that you feel that "black" identity is threatened by the possibility of a role being played by the ODR in the formulation of that identity, then I would like to remind you that I am not in any way advocating anything here. Whatever contradictions may reveal themselves due to a reasoned examination of the parameters surrounding an identity can not be reasonably regarded as cases of me not respecting an identity choice.
In my opinion, there’s no need for you to feel implicated as advocating something other than your point-of-view (and I’ve discussed).
Black identity and the Black ethnic group wouldn’t exist without the ODR. I don’t understand what you mean here.
erasmusinfinity wrote:
Sticking to the topic of the African-European genetic ancestry spectrum, someone with the appearance of, say, Michael Jordan or Wesley Snipes would not be regarded by most Americans as being "white" even if they culturally identified as such and wished to be regarded as such.
Why would one expect an equal application of racial rules on both sides of the color line, especially when considering the number one racial rule in USAmerican society: Subsaharan African ancestry and appearance are inferior. There is no historical context or racial rule to support the notion that, in racialist society that supports Euro superiority/SSA inferiority and hypodescent , two members of the Black ethnic group with a majority African appearance would be regarded as “White” by most Americans. In the case of one of these individuals, Michael Jordan, as with Oprah Winfrey, Barack Obama, Colin Powell, Chris Rock, and others of their stature, there is a somewhat “post-racial” existence that they occupy due to their popularity and achievements. But that’s another topic.
Also, to say that a particular Black person would not be accepted as White is irrelevant, unless we are now talking about the prospect of “White coming in all colors?” Still, if MJ changed his name to Miguel Juarez he’d have a shot. One day it will be uncontroversial. Today? Not so much.
erasmusinfinity wrote:
Persons with European and Native American admixture and Latinos, Arabs, etc. who are generally regarded, by most Americans, as something ambiguously outside of the black-white American dyad do not pertain to this topic.
I'm not sure about that. Your argument hinges upon the following:
erasmusinfinity wrote:
Two more critical points are implicit in the phrase "black people come in all colors."
1. "White" people do not come in a variety of colors. They are defined as something which is entirely "white" or pure.
2. Anyone who is anything but entirely "white" goes in the category that involves "all colors" which is "black."
Two facts: First, the intermarriage rate of Latinos and Asians with Whites is far above that of Blacks and Whites. Second, Latinos, Arabs, Asians, etc. plus multicontinental people without SSA ancestry or with SSA ancestry but “protected” by non-U.S. nationalities are not subject to the ODR. These facts indicate that there is no lumping together of the “nonpure” non-Whites against the “pure” Whites. When it’s said that “Blacks come in all colors,” that excludes Keanu Reeves, Vijay Singh, Michelle Malkin and Jennifer Lopez. It includes Tom Joyner, Skip Gates, Vanessa Williams and Cicely Tyson.
erasmusinfinity wrote:
Before the emergence of the ODR, persons who were known to be of mixed African and European lineage were catagorized according to seperate labels other then "black." Indeed, "black" persons were not thought to come in all colors.
Even if these labels were applied uniformly and without ambiguity or visual contradiction (they were not), ancestry was much more important than appearance, and therein lay the problem . The point of the ODR was to enshrine the degree of SSA ancestry as the determinant for one’s “race” rather than one’s appearance. Prior to the ODR there were any number of blood quantum laws throughout the states/colonies, and most certainly tried to limit the amount of SSA “blood” that White people could legally have (the point was generally not to ascertain how much SSA ancestry an Afro-Euro or Afro-Amerindian person could have without being labeled “Black,” to the detriment of ethnic groups like the Louisiana Creoles). The ODR ultimately relegated all of those pesky White folks who had grandmothers who looked like Oprah or even Vanessa Williams to the “Black” side of the color line. Generations later, we have a group of Blacks who run the Afro-Euro gamut, and that really is what the phrase signifies.
erasmusinfinity wrote:
That being said, I do think that there is a contradiction between an identity that depends upon the ODR, illustrated by the phrase "black people come in all colors," and the logic that allows for freedom of choice.
I don’t think AA identity depends on the ODR. The ethnic group was formed as a consequence of the ODR generations ago, which is not the same thing. Many AA politicians and groups like the NAACP certainly believe that AA political strength depends on the ODR, but that has nothing to do with the presence of genetic diversity within an ethnic group, does it?
Freedom of choice exists when people can avow an identity based on their personal preference, not when one racial order is replaced by another.
erasmusinfinity wrote:
What do you mean by post racialist here? Do you mean post-segregation era / post Jim Crow? The very concept of whiteness strikes me, in and of itself, as racialist. Unless we are dreaming of a future "white" cultural identity that embraces the likes of Michael Jordan and Wesley Snipes. And, fringe "black" purists notwithstanding, it strikes me that informed "blacks" have understood themselves to "come in all colors" since the advent and progression of the one drop rule.
I said pro-racialist.
erasmusinfinity wrote:
Indeed. And perhaps, one day the "white" label will include persons with strong noticeable African ancestry (Michael Jordan and Wesley Snipes even). But as long as there is a concept of purity there will always be a concept of impurity, regardless of what it is called and regardless of who is on the inside and who is on the outside.
There certainly is a concept of purity – the imposition of the ODR did not occur because people strove for accurate racial labeling. This notion of purity, though, was and continues to be problematic. The popularity of the hybrid vigor notion plus an increase in cross-colorline marriages and progeny might even bring about the rise of multicontinental superiority as a racial paradigm. These days it is not an advantage or disadvantage to be “pure” outside of the most extreme racist fringes or misinformed ethnocentrist.
The entire statement is one of (self) identification
-------
sagascend wrote:
This topic comes up frequently on this site and, over the years, two basic opposing arguments have arisen. One is that the statement is a reflection of reality: The AA ethnic group was forged due to the ODR, so people who self-identify as Blacks run the Afro-Euro spectrum. The other is that, because the legacy of the ODR continues to deny many of partially AA descent as well as U.S. residents with SSA ancestry the right to self-identify and also encourages the application of the term “Black” to people with visual multicontinental heritage, it ought to apply only to a narrower group of Blacks.
Neither of these arguments is mine.
-------
sagascend wrote:
If you feel implicated, that’s unfortunate, because I do not know or care how you’d label anyone personally, though should you offer a perspective it would be an interesting side comment.
sagascend wrote:
In my opinion, there’s no need for you to feel implicated as advocating something other than your point-of-view (and I’ve discussed).
You said
sagascend wrote:
And reading in (i.e., imposing one's view/making assumptions) is antithetical to the notion that people ought to define their own identity and very much compatible with the notion that there are "right" and "wrong" ways for a person to identify.
I did not take it personally. I clarified that I do not wish to control individual identity choice.
-------
sagascend wrote:
Black identity and the Black ethnic group wouldn’t exist without the ODR.
Agreed.
-------
sagascend wrote:
Why would one expect an equal application of racial rules on both sides of the color line, especially when considering the number one racial rule in USAmerican society: Subsaharan African ancestry and appearance are inferior.
I don't think that anyone here has such an expectation.
-------
sagascend wrote:
Also, to say that a particular Black person would not be accepted as White is irrelevant, unless we are now talking about the prospect of “White coming in all colors?”
I referred to certain recognizable media personas as random examples in order to illustrate that white people do not come in all colors in America. This is relevant because it illustrates the context by which the phrase "black people come in all colors" is a case of one-dropping.
-------
sagascend wrote:
These facts indicate that there is no lumping together of the “nonpure” non-Whites against the “pure” Whites.
Yes. "White" purity was an absurd fiction, despite whatever power it may have in society.
-------
sagascend wrote:
There certainly is a concept of purity – the imposition of the ODR did not occur because people strove for accurate racial labeling. This notion of purity, though, was and continues to be problematic.
Yes and yes.
-------
sagascend wrote:
Generations later, we have a group of Blacks who run the Afro-Euro gamut, and that really is what the phrase signifies.
Yes. An expression of the ODR.
-------
sagascend wrote:
I don’t think AA identity depends on the ODR.
Over time "black" and "white" identities could hypothetically become exclusively matters of cultural affiliation, without any reference whatsoever to presumed genetic ancestry, social class, or otherwise. But the phrase "black people come in all colors" says otherwise. It is an attempt at designating something unique about "blackness." Again, why not just the phrase "people come in all colors?" What is so special about the relationship of this quality to "black" people?
-------
sagascend wrote:
Freedom of choice exists when people can avow an identity based on their personal preference, not when one racial order is replaced by another.
It does not exist when an established racial order does not allow for it.
-------
sagascend wrote:
I said pro-racialist.
My mistake. My apologies.
-------
sagascend wrote:
These days it is not an advantage or disadvantage to be “pure” outside of the most extreme racist fringes or misinformed ethnocentrist.
I think that it can be advantageous in many social circumstances... that there is still much "white" on "black" prejudice and discrimination via "white" in-group preference. I would not expect otherwise and I would not expect that to change, at least for as long as a "black" and "white" continues to be made. But those are other topics.
It's useful to go back to the original quote to sum this up:
erasmusinfinity wrote:
The notion that "black people come in all colors" is specifically meant to imply that "blackness" consists of persons with complete African ancestry, and also persons with some African ancestry and some degree or combination of some other.
Two more critical points are implicit in the phrase "black people come in all colors."
1. "White" people do not come in a variety of colors. They are defined as something which is entirely "white" or pure.
2. Anyone who is anything but entirely "white" goes in the category that involves "all colors" which is "black."
First, the contention is that the phrase implies that members of the AA ethnic group have diverse skin shades. There's no mention of degrees of SSA ancestry. In fact, the statement also refers to self-identified AAs who have no detectable SSA admixture - no implication about whether SSA genes are present is required. This is pretty much the only explicit meaning of the phrase.
The definition of one-dropping is outlined in Rule 3.3.10 and was quoted in a previous post. The ascription of identity, involuntary assignment of people with little to no SSA genes (especially to Whites with distant SSA genealogy), is key to one-dropping. That intent is simply not always present when this phrase is uttered. It seems to me that more rigor and precision ought to be in force, especially in this forum.
For any implications of the statement to be accurate, one must consider the context in which it used as well as the intent. The statement does not stand alone and one need not draw implicit conclusions, especially the conclusion that someone who uses it is one-dropping, calling out "passing" or saying that anyone who isn't "pure" White (suppose that means of 100% Euro genes) is "Black."
Second, there is no "pure" White group that stands in opposition to a "non-pure" Black group including Latinos, Asians (e.g, "anyone who is anything but entirely white"). Not only are Whites as impure as they come, the White ethnic group is always expanding and already includes highly "impure" non- or barely Euro people.
Third, to say that a person who states that Blacks come in all colors is expressing (applying) the ODR is like saying that residents of Arizona express the idea of Manifest Destiny when they say that "Arizona is a state in the U.S. republic." There's a HUGE leap in intent and historical context to get from A to B in both scenarios. Yes, the U.S. was expanded on the notion of Manifest Destiny but not every modern American who states the obvious about a current state of affairs is supporting Manifest Destiny as a concept.
erasmusinfinity wrote:
But the phrase "black people come in all colors" says otherwise. It is an attempt at designating something unique about "blackness." Again, why not just the phrase "people come in all colors?" What is so special about the relationship of this quality to "black" people?
That's a matter of perspective. If there is something unique about the use of the phrase it is only that some sort of diversity is present that would otherwise prevent a unifying conception of these diverse entities as members of the same group. When people say "Americans come in all colors" they're pointing out that there isn't one phenotype associated with being American. When people say "Humans come in all colors" they're pointing out that our race is made up of a myriad of regional phenotype archetypes and blends. Same thing with Latinos - the La Raza concept is very similar. Some set of unifying characteristics superseding diversity of appearance. "Special" isn't exactly the way I'd look at, so I don't see the point in singling out AAs as "special." Perhaps the orginator (ODR) is special in that it is specific to the U.S., but everything else is common human behavior.
First, the contention is that the phrase implies that members of the AA ethnic group have diverse skin shades. There's no mention of degrees of SSA ancestry.
There is no more so an assumption about skin shades in my assessment of the meaning of the term "colors" then is or isn't implied in the statement in question. Whatever the term "colors" means in the original fits my points about it, whether that be skin shade, ancestry, cultural qualities, or whatever. Substitute whatever characteristic term you wish... "black people come in all varieties" or "black people come in all sorts" etc. The implication is the same.
-------
sagascend wrote:
That intent is simply not always present when this phrase is uttered.
Please give just one example of how this phrase is actually uttered without the ODR being present.
-------
sagascend wrote:
It seems to me that more rigor and precision ought to be in force, especially in this forum.
Such comments are not exemplary of rigor. Let's stick to the topic please. Or are you, here, intending to take on a moderator role in the discussion?
-------
sagascend wrote:
Second, there is no "pure" White group that stands in opposition to a "non-pure" Black group including Latinos, Asians (e.g, "anyone who is anything but entirely white"). Not only are Whites as impure as they come, the White ethnic group is always expanding and already includes highly "impure" non- or barely Euro people.
Yes. But people do not say "white people come in all colors." Maybe they should. I'm not offering my opinion. But they don't.
-------
sagascend wrote:
There's a HUGE leap in intent and historical context to get from A to B
Do you feel that someone must have intent in order to one drop? I had said that one did not. I had said that one could one drop without knowing that they were doing so.
-------
sagascend wrote:
If there is something unique about the use of the phrase it is only that some sort of diversity is present that would otherwise prevent a unifying conception of these diverse entities as members of the same group. When people say "Americans come in all colors" they're pointing out that there isn't one phenotype associated with being American. When people say "Humans come in all colors" they're pointing out that our race is made up of a myriad of regional phenotype archetypes and blends. Same thing with Latinos - the La Raza concept is very similar. Some set of unifying characteristics superseding diversity of appearance.
That is quite an abstraction from the phrase "black people come in all colors."
-------
sagascend wrote:
Perhaps the orginator (ODR) is special in that it is specific to the U.S., but everything else is common human behavior.
Fine. I am not making a value judgment. I have only been saying that "blacks come in all colors" is a phrase that one drops. Nothing more and nothing less.
I have only been saying that "blacks come in all colors" is a phrase that one drops. Nothing more and nothing less.
Much more has been said and addressed in previous posts. My basic points are:
1)intent and context matter in consideration of meaning (this is an uncontroversial tenet of rhetorical analysis, which we're basically all doing at the end of the day)
2)the definition of one-drop(ping) should not become a catchphrase because it has a specific meaning. A person is one-dropping when s/he ascribes a Black identity to a person based on the conclusion that this person has SSA ancestry, especially if this person does not self-identify as Black. Specifically, the term applied to Whites with distant SSA ancestry, Lastly, "hypodescent" is likely the more accurate term to use in most cases under consideration.
People don't "one-drop" when they say that Tom Joyner is Black - its the identity he avows. People one-drop when they say Vin Diesel is Black - he does not.
Ignorance (of how a person self-identifies) can certainly lead a person to one-drop, but I have already provided examples of situations when people are either stating a fact (referring to all of the self-identified Blacks in a family photo as such) or stating their ethnic identification.
In the latter case, the difference in one-dropping could be the rationale provided (i.e., instead of saying "Blacks come in all colors" the person says "Only a dab'll do you" or "all it takes is one drop"). There are coined phrases in circulation that make much more explicit links to the ODR. IMO the leap from uttering the phrase to one-dropping is too large. Using this logic, we're all implying by stating there are 50 states that we support Manifest Destiny. Perhaps we simply acknowledge the reality that 50 states exist.
I always have the role of moderator when I'm posting. I have to enforce to rules and follow them. Since this is a historical forum and since we have a definition of the term in rule 3.3.10, it's my suggestion that we use the definition and not the catchphrase.
I always have the role of moderator when I'm posting. I have to enforce to rules and follow them. Since this is a historical forum and since we have a definition of the term in rule 3.3.10, it's my suggestion that we use the definition and not the catchphrase.
Actually, rule 3.3 states that the poster must explicitly make his/her meaning clear if site-standard definitions are not followed, but need not do so if they are followed. In this case, as I indicated earlier, I believe that the poster has been using "ODR" to denote what the site-standard definition calls "hypodescent." Since this non-standard usage was clear (at least to me) from the start, I would not consider it a rules violation. In fact, Sonia and I have occasionally used "ODR" as synonym for "hypodescent" in our posts (a careless practice, I admit).
Nevertheless, this forum targets college students working on term papers, and so we should try to be consistent. Hence, I agree with Maya, that it might be clearer to novice readers if we switched to "hypodescent" rather than continuing to use "one-drop rule." Specifically, "ODR" denotes attribution in spite of completely Euro phenotype and in defiance of self-choice; "hypodescent" denotes attribution due to even slight but detectable Afro phenotype and lacks self-choice implication either way.
Again, I do not see a rules violation as it stands, but I think we should all try be sticklers for precise technical jargon, at least in this particular forum.
I always have the role of moderator when I'm posting. I have to enforce to rules and follow them. Since this is a historical forum and since we have a definition of the term in rule 3.3.10, it's my suggestion that we use the definition and not the catchphrase.
Actually, rule 3.3 states that the poster must explicitly make his/her meaning clear if site-standard definitions are not followed, but need not do so if they are followed. In this case, as I indicated earlier, I believe that the poster has been using "ODR" to denote what the site-standard definition calls "hypodescent." Since this non-standard usage was clear (at least to me) from the start, I would not consider it a rules violation. In fact, Sonia and I have occasionally used "ODR" as synonym for "hypodescent" in our posts (a careless practice, I admit).
Nevertheless, this forum targets college students working on term papers, and so we should try to be consistent. Hence, I agree with Maya, that it might be clearer to novice readers if we switched to "hypodescent" rather than continuing to use "one-drop rule." Specifically, "ODR" denotes attribution in spite of completely Euro phenotype and in defiance of self-choice; "hypodescent" denotes attribution due to even slight but detectable Afro phenotype and lacks self-choice implication either way.
Again, I do not see a rules violation as it stands, but I think we should all try be sticklers for precise technical jargon, at least in this particular forum.
No violation occurred in my opinion either. It really was just a suggestion to get more technical in the this technical forum.
1)intent and context matter in consideration of meaning (this is an uncontroversial tenet of rhetorical analysis, which we're basically all doing at the end of the day)
2)the definition of one-drop(ping) should not become a catchphrase because it has a specific meaning. A person is one-dropping when s/he ascribes a Black identity to a person based on the conclusion that this person has SSA ancestry, especially if this person does not self-identify as Black. Specifically, the term applied to Whites with distant SSA ancestry, Lastly, "hypodescent" is likely the more accurate term to use in most cases under consideration.
I do not disagree with the gist of either of these two points, except that I am confident that one can promote an application of the ODR without necessarily possessing a malicious intent or even being aware of it. This point is not in any way incompatible with the definition of the ODR described in the rules section of this forum.
Quote:
3.3.10 one-drop rule — The notion that someone of European appearance who rejects a Black self-identity is involuntarily Black due merely to having “one drop” of known African ancestry, no matter how ancient, and is merely “passing for White.” The one-drop rule is the most extreme manifestation of hypodescent. Hence, all cases of one-drop rule are also examples of hypodescent, but the reverse is not true; not all cases of hypodescent (calling a first generation biracial invidivual “Black,” for example) are examples of the one-drop rule.
If this is merely a semantic disagreement about whether the expression "one dropping" means promoting an application of the ODR in general or just in cases involving a deliberate malicious intent, then I would be happy to adopt your usage of the term "one dropping" as long as you can also accept the idea that persons can promote an application of the ODR without necessarily possessing a malicious intent or being aware of it. As such, feel free to replace all occurrences in which I have used the phrase "one dropping" in this thread with the phrase "promoting an application of the one drop rule."
My last post was entered after I viewed the last couple of posts. From here on, I will use the term "hypodescent" and that only to refer to the phenomenon in question.
I am confident that one can promote an application of the ODR without necessarily possessing a malicious intent or even being aware of it.
Me too. One can also promote application of the ODR with benign intentions and discourage it with malicious ones. Lots of scenarios are possible. My point was the intent/context matter so I am hesitant to attribute one underlying intent in all cases.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
