Here lately I notice this in the Afrigeneas forums a lot, how this person and that person seems to be passing for white, and how it is sometimes difficult in locating that relative because that relative will not reveal a lot. I notice even in Shirlee Taylor Haizlip's book "Sweeter the Juice" how it took her so long to locate those missing persons passing for white. She however did become a bit lucky. How then do we become that lucky? So how do we really prove that the white person down the street or across the nation is our Cousin Sue or our Uncle Bud? I have seen in some cases where a white person did have some of the features of some of my relatives, and I do belive that person was a relative. Some folks said that even my grandfather John House looked like a white man. Wonder what would have happened if he had decided to pass for white rather than stay with his family. Then of course I look at it in another fashion. John House was always away working somewhere in Asheville, N.C. and would come home to Gold Hill, N.c. on the weekends.
Wonder if he passed for white somewhere else. One never can tell.
Joseph
Various responses to Joseph's post...
Quote:
Joseph,
You have raised a good topic for discussion.
I think we should define "passing" for white. There are several different configurations:
1. Folks who "passed" on their job only bit can be found on other records as black or mulatto.
2. Record taker error - some black folks were listed as "white" because the person making the record entry - whether it is census, marriage, birth - assumed the person was white.
3. "Passing completely" - usually those folks who chose to leave being AA and become European left the area they were from - since "home folks" tend to know who is who.
In some cases - these folks did not disguise their birth state when recorded in later census years, and there are other clues as well. Many listed the real name of parents on marriage records - I am dea,ling with a case like this right now -where the marriage record shows the name of the parents (in another state) and the parents are listed as mulatto. The person in question is listed as white. They are found in records as a child as mulatto.
Would like to hear from more folks dealing with these issues.
Denise
Quote:
My white English mother married a Bengali in the late 1950s, she had three mixed race kids, I'm the only one out of the three of us who could "pass" for white. I choose not too though I can tell you for nothing my life would have been a hell of a lot easier if I had done!
A lot of men and women during the days of the Raj passed themselves off as white, it is not just an African American experience, many of these children were the result of liaisons between white English soldiers and low caste girls, however nearly every mixed race family claimed their Indian ancestor was actually an Indian Princess, no one was the offspring of a prostitute and her white customer, or the result of a temporary arrangement whilst a solider was based in India.
When the Raj crumbled in 1948, many Anglo Indians (the ones who had the money that is!) as they were now known as left for the UK and merged in with the general white population. To this day there are many families in the UK who don’t know that in their lineage a liaison with an Indian girl or more rarely (though it did happen!) an Indian boy produced a child that is their ancestor.
For these “bastards” of the Raj, tracing their ancestor who choose to pass is next to impossible. Sometimes the proof lies in a throwback being born into a family that is supposed “white” but it’s rare and history has covered its tracks.
I’m lucky, my mother never tried to pretend we were white, and I never choose to go down that road either so my family know where we came from and we all hope we know where we are going too.
Having the “stain” of Indian blood meant that many people hid their heritage from their families and if they were forced to admit to it, they elevated their status, making their ancestor an Hindu or Mogul Princess when it reality they were ordinary people living in extraordinary times…
Quote:
Denise,
This is a very good subject to discuss. This subject of "passing for white" has been around for a long time, but in my family it was a taboo. The (taboo) was that because, some of my relatives "passed" and helped the family, it would hurt the family if it was found out. So it was not discussed openly. My grandfather passed for "white" all his life up until right before he died. My grandfather never acknowledged my mother until he was dying in a hospital bed. An incident happen to change this. He wanted to see my mother and her children and to let her know who he was and had a relative to contact her. When my mother went to see my grandfather, he was in a private room in the hospital and the nurse would not let my mother and some of her children in to see him because, she said only family could see him. My grandfather was half white and Indian, but he looked (white) with black hair and blue eyes. When my grandfather told the (white) nurse that my mother was his daughter, she was upset and had him moved to a ward. My grandfather's other sisters and brothers also looked white, so when they came to see him it was no problem. Some of them passed for (white) and others did not. When I checked his death record he was buried as a (black) man.
Glenda
Quote:
I, too, grew up a white woman who discovered her African-American ancestry as an adult. I grew up in the south of a southern father and northern mother. It is my mother's side of the family who descended from the Lyons family of Pennsylvania. Since I grew up in the south, I really didn't know much about Mom's family. As far as I knew they were white. However, in digging for more information I found my grandfather "passed" around 1918 when he married my white grandmother. He died before my mother was even married so I never knew much about him except he was a barber, a musician and a wonderful father. I've only seen two photos of him taken in 1939 and both are not very clear but he was certainly not very dark.
My research has taken me back to 1780 and I find many mixed marriages from then to now. I've met some of my white relatives from other branches of our family and one black family, all descended from a common ancester, Benjamin Lyons.
While searching for information has, at times, been difficult, it is not impossible.
If anyone is researching any of these names originating in Pennsylvania, I'd love to hear from you:
Lyons/Heck/Forsythe/Baptist/Criswell or Cresswell
Rose Mary
Quote:
My Great Aunt who was my Grandmother's sister was born blond with blue eyes. She choice not to pass but did marry a white man. She had one son that was born with the same blue eyes. She was born in 1896 so we are dealing with the signs of the times.
Geraldine
Quote:
Sad to say, passing is still very much in fashion today. I know of a number of people right here here in Toledo, Ohio who are passing for white. They range in age from 40-65 years of age. Several are males and females in the realestate business,corporate executives and food industry. I knew some of them as playmates, others were friends of my mother and her brothers and sisters.
They become nervous when people from their childhood are around them and their "white friends". I would not out them but, if someone was to ask me about their racial background, I wouldn't lie!
Quote:
I was at a meeting with my relatives planning a family cruise reunion and one of my cousin who knowsI do genealogy mentioned that one of our grandfather's sister passed for white. I could not believe that. Knowing how proud my grandfather was of his African-American background it was a shock to find out that one of his sister would do that. his father might have been white and his was pretty fair skin when he was younger, so he could have passed, but he didn't. I have been trying to find out who his father was, but I get comflicting stories about who the man could have been. Regardless, I think his sister was cowardly to do that. It shows that my grandfather had the courage to respect his hertiage when others probably didn't. To think that people are still doing it is absoultely pathetic. What is wrong with human beings? Why is it possible for animals who supposely have smaller brains, to love their children or adapt other species of animals regardless of what they look like, but humans can't get beyond skin color, social status, or sexual preference. When people pass, they need help from a psychiatrist.[/b]
Hahaha, sorry, but someone didn't found funny the last quote.
I laughed at the last part, because he says everything about how wrong is passing and later talks about how animals don't see color, and again talks about passing.
Well, again, what is passing?
I mean, if you look white, you probably are going to be attacked as one, unless you throw paint at your body, you are going to be white forever. What is passing?
And why someone should care if you say you have some non-white relative? Considering that even white nationalist admit that normal whites make the majority and they look at them as lunatic.
Again, from my perspective, in Mexico, all people buy the "everyone is mestizo" lie. Even if is true, that is not going to stop the merchants from calling you Guero as you walk by, or that your skin says white in your passport or that criminals are going to look after you because your skin means money.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Tue 23 May 2006 15:16 Post subject: Gueros
interesado wrote:
..Again, from my perspective, in Mexico, all people buy the "everyone is mestizo" lie. Even if is true, that is not going to stop the merchants from calling you Guero as you walk by, or that your skin says white in your passport or that criminals are going to look after you because your skin means money.
Hi,
Mexican Gueros are also mestizos, aren't they? At least in Chile to be blond does not mean to have a fully european family tree.
Well, I am Chilean and I know what means to be a mestizo in Latin America: you are never so sure what you really are.
By the way "guero" is the way we call ligh brown horses in Chile. Is that the origin of the label in Mexico as well?
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Tue 23 May 2006 16:33 Post subject:
Omar wrote:
Well, I am Chilean and I know what means to be a mestizo in Latin America: you are never so sure what you really are.
Hi, Omar:
What do you mean by the above statement? Do you mean people who look white are really mestizos? Or do you mean the "mestizo" and "white" cagegories merge to a degree? I recall your saying once that most Chileans could pass for southern Europeans, despite some native admixture. Most Chileans I know look entirely European.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Tue 23 May 2006 17:07 Post subject: Looking
William wrote:
Omar wrote:
Well, I am Chilean and I know what means to be a mestizo in Latin America: you are never so sure what you really are.
Hi, Omar:
What do you mean by the above statement? Do you mean people who look white are really mestizos? Or do you mean the "mestizo" and "white" cagegories merge to a degree? I recall your saying once that most Chileans could pass for southern Europeans, despite some native admixture. Most Chileans I know look entirely European.
Hi William,
I mean people that look white is really mixed. What happens William, is that when a person is 1/2 and 1/2 hardly could pass for white. However if a person is 3/4 european and 1/4 native is almost impossible to distinguish it from an European. But still, by definition, is a mixed person.
In my country the percentage of native blood are between 15 and 25%. In Argentina they are between 10 and 15%. So, people look "italian" but we do know we have native ancestors as well.
In short, to be blond is not proof of having a completely European ancestry at all. In fact about 1/2 of our Mapuche natives could pass as Europeans as well.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Tue 23 May 2006 17:21 Post subject:
Omar wrote:
I mean people that look white is really mixed. What happens William, is that when a person is 1/2 and 1/2 hardly could pass for white. However if a person is 3/4 european and 1/4 native is almost impossible to distinguish it from an European. But still, by definition, is a mixed person.
In my country the percentage of native blood are between 15 and 25%. In Argentina they are between 10 and 15%. So, people look "italian" but we do know we have native ancestors as well.
Do most of these lightly mixed types identify as white in Chile? All the Chilean-Americans I know call themselves white.
Omar wrote:
In short, to be blond is not proof of having a completely European ancestry at all. In fact about 1/2 of our Mapuche natives could pass as Europeans as well.
The Mapuches who look European must have a substantial amount of European admixture. I suppose that people are considered Mapuches if they follow the Mapuche way of life and culture, regardless of whether they are mixed or not, correct? You posted pictures of pure natives once, and some of them had physical aspects that looked remarkably European. I suppose some of the natives in the Austral Cone region are quite different in appearance from many of the natives farther to the north. Of course, natives do vary from region to region, just like Europeans do.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Tue 23 May 2006 18:28 Post subject: Chileans
William wrote:
..
Do most of these lightly mixed types identify as white in Chile? All the Chilean-Americans I know call themselves white.
Yes. Well, in Chile people believe that "white" means European descendent. Many people in Chile have the Indian "in the closet". They don't want anybody to know they have some Native ancestry. Well... you know the whole history. That's a common attitude in the hemisphere, I guess.
Quote:
The Mapuches who look European must have a substantial amount of European admixture. I suppose that people are considered Mapuches if they follow the Mapuche way of life and culture, regardless of whether they are mixed or not, correct?
Correct. People is Mapuche by culture.
Quote:
You posted pictures of pure natives once, and some of them had physical aspects that looked remarkably European. I suppose some of the natives in the Austral Cone region are quite different in appearance from many of the natives farther to the north. Of course, natives do vary from region to region, just like Europeans do.
Yes. The "pure" Native of the southern cone is more European looking than the ones of northern South America, Mexico or Central America. There are pictures of Yagans of the 19th century, for example, that do look European, indeed.
Besides, in the past centuries, thousands of European women were capture by the Natives. They Mapuches of the XVI to XVIII centuries used to destroy whole towns, kill all the men and captured women and children which became assimilated to their tribes.
In here the Europeans had a harder time than in other latitudes. Particularly in Souther Argentina and Chile.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Tue 23 May 2006 19:31 Post subject: Re: Chileans
oevega wrote:
Altertude wrote:
oevega wrote:
William wrote:
..
Do most of these lightly mixed types identify as white in Chile? All the Chilean-Americans I know call themselves white.
Yes. Well, in Chile people believe that "white" means European descendent.
Huh!? Identity or description?
Description of course. For identity the label "Chilean" is enough.
Regards,
Omar Vega
Um, doesn't seem like that from saying ""white" means European descendent". What does European descent describe? How is "Chilean" an identity but not "European"?
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Tue 23 May 2006 19:56 Post subject: Re: Chileans
Altertude wrote:
Um, doesn't seem like that from saying ""white" means European descendent". What does European descent describe? How is "Chilean" an identity but not "European"?
Hi,
Because in Chile, like in any country of Latin America, people feel identify with its own land, not with remote land of mythical ancestor, whatever those could be. Who cares if French, Italians, Spaniards or whatever came here? Their descendents are not European anymore. They are Chileans.
The "whiteness" thing is an American obsession. In here the important part at a national level is what is our common identity as a people. In the personal level people worry about their own particular ancestors just like a hobbie. Yes, some people colect stamps and others enjoy filling family trees.
In here, the real identity is that most of us are descendents of farmers and poor people of the country side, where the mixtures of Europeans and Indians peasants took place. So, if a chilean really want to do a demostration of identity, he goes to a rodeo to ride a horse and wears a poncho and the flat andalucian hat of the chilean cowboy.
Now, if the Chilean goes to the U.S. they will say they are white, just because that is what the society expect from a people that fit in that group in their external phenotype.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Wed 24 May 2006 00:23 Post subject: Re: Chileans
oevega wrote:
Altertude wrote:
Um, doesn't seem like that from saying ""white" means European descendent". What does European descent describe? How is "Chilean" an identity but not "European"?
Hi,
Because in Chile, like in any country of Latin America, people feel identify with its own land, not with remote land of mythical ancestor, whatever those could be. Who cares if French, Italians, Spaniards or whatever came here? Their descendents are not European anymore. They are Chileans.
Funny, I seem to recall someone round her praising to the skies the strong cultural connections of Hispano/Latino culture, which makes me think Chileans are not always expressing identity at the national level.
Quote:
The "whiteness" thing is an American obsession. In here the important part at a national level is what is our common identity as a people. In the personal level people worry about their own particular ancestors just like a hobbie. Yes, some people colect stamps and others enjoy filling family trees.
Well, William asked about people in Chile not when they go to America, and that is why I'm still a bit confused. At the level I observe it the "white" thing is also a European thing.
Quote:
In here, the real identity is that most of us are descendents of farmers and poor people of the country side, where the mixtures of Europeans and Indians peasants took place. So, if a chilean really want to do a demostration of identity, he goes to a rodeo to ride a horse and wears a poncho and the flat andalucian hat of the chilean cowboy.
That much is clear because if all a person has known is the farm, then feeling a connection to the continent might be unnecessary for them.
Maybe we should take this over to the "Whiteness: Identity or Description?" thread, so as not to divert this one.
Quote:
Now, if the Chilean goes to the U.S. they will say they are white, just because that is what the society expect from a people that fit in that group in their external phenotype.
Yes, right. Chilean's who go to another place, if not among other Chilean's would identify at another level.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Wed 24 May 2006 01:41 Post subject: Re: Chileans
Altertude wrote:
Funny, I seem to recall someone round her praising to the skies the strong cultural connections of Hispano/Latino culture, which makes me think Chileans are not always expressing identity at the national level.
The identity people follows is the national identity of the country, not their particular familiar descendency. It's so hard to explain, but I would try.
Imagine you are an Australian, then your country is Australia and your Queen is called Queen Elizabeth II. Now, if you are a Chilean your land is Chile, and Chile's ancestors are the ancient natives and Spain. Spain is like the image of the Queen for us. Is an idealize land, more in the imagination than in reality. Is the land of "some" of our ancestors and the origin of "most" of our culture.
I don't know if you get it.
In my particular case, my ancestors came from France, Italy, Spain and Natives. But those French and Italians does not count at all because they are not part of the "official" origin of my country.
Uf!!! I don't know if I could transmit the idea. People follow the identity of the country and not the one of the family tree.
Quote:
Well, William asked about people in Chile not when they go to America, and that is why I'm still a bit confused. At the level I observe it the "white" thing is also a European thing.
Chileans consider themselves "white" because most have skins that vary from light brown skin to white. They don't consider themselves Europeans though, except recent immigrants.
Quote:
Maybe we should take this over to the "Whiteness: Identity or Description?" thread, so as not to divert this one.
Good idea.
Quote:
Yes, right. Chilean's who go to another place, if not among other Chilean's would identify at another level.
When Chileans go to North America or other mainly North European countries suffer an identity shock. They figure out immediately they don't belong to ANY other groups. They are even fractures in the Chilean communities because some want to integrate to Nordics and others preffer to live appart or get along with other Latinos.
Yes, Latinos in general suffer a lot when they go to the States and have to learn and assimilate the racial rules of that country.
Posted: Wed 24 May 2006 02:00 Post subject: "Passing" obsession
Quote:
Joseph,
You have raised a good topic for discussion.
I think we should define "passing" for white. There are several different configurations:
1. Folks who "passed" on their job only bit can be found on other records as black or mulatto.
2. Record taker error - some black folks were listed as "white" because the person making the record entry - whether it is census, marriage, birth - assumed the person was white.
3. "Passing completely" - usually those folks who chose to leave being AA and become European left the area they were from - since "home folks" tend to know who is who.
In some cases - these folks did not disguise their birth state when recorded in later census years, and there are other clues as well. Many listed the real name of parents on marriage records - I am dea,ling with a case like this right now -where the marriage record shows the name of the parents (in another state) and the parents are listed as mulatto. The person in question is listed as white. They are found in records as a child as mulatto.
Would like to hear from more folks dealing with these issues.
Denise
So, Denise is ready to forgive temporary "passing" (which European Jews used to do all the time before the Nazis made them wear the yellow star.) No doubt Denise would favor a similar badge for alleged "passers." It is also clear that "passers" were not living in fear, as Negro mythology claims.
Quote:
Quote:
My white English mother married a Bengali in the late 1950s, she had three mixed race kids, I'm the only one out of the three of us who could "pass" for white. I choose not too though I can tell you for nothing my life would have been a hell of a lot easier if I had done!
A lot of men and women during the days of the Raj passed themselves off as white, it is not just an African American experience, many of these children were the result of liaisons between white English soldiers and low caste girls, however nearly every mixed race family claimed their Indian ancestor was actually an Indian Princess, no one was the offspring of a prostitute and her white customer, or the result of a temporary arrangement whilst a solider was based in India.
When the Raj crumbled in 1948, many Anglo Indians (the ones who had the money that is!) as they were now known as left for the UK and merged in with the general white population. To this day there are many families in the UK who don’t know that in their lineage a liaison with an Indian girl or more rarely (though it did happen!) an Indian boy produced a child that is their ancestor.
For these “bastards” of the Raj, tracing their ancestor who choose to pass is next to impossible. Sometimes the proof lies in a throwback being born into a family that is supposed “white” but it’s rare and history has covered its tracks.
I’m lucky, my mother never tried to pretend we were white, and I never choose to go down that road either so my family know where we came from and we all hope we know where we are going too.
Having the “stain” of Indian blood meant that many people hid their heritage from their families and if they were forced to admit to it, they elevated their status, making their ancestor an Hindu or Mogul Princess when it reality they were ordinary people living in extraordinary times…
These books will give you a very different picture of the subject of Anglo Indians:
White Mughals: Love and Betrayal in Eighteenth-Century India
by William Dalrymple
POOR RELATIONS; THE MAKING OF A EURASIAN COMMUNITY IN BRITISH INDIA 1773-1833 by Christopher Hawes (Curzon Press, 1996; may be purchased from University of Hawaii Press).
Quote:
Quote:
I, too, grew up a white woman who discovered her African-American ancestry as an adult. I grew up in the south of a southern father and northern mother. It is my mother's side of the family who descended from the Lyons family of Pennsylvania. Since I grew up in the south, I really didn't know much about Mom's family. As far as I knew they were white. However, in digging for more information I found my grandfather "passed" around 1918 when he married my white grandmother. He died before my mother was even married so I never knew much about him except he was a barber, a musician and a wonderful father. I've only seen two photos of him taken in 1939 and both are not very clear but he was certainly not very dark.
My research has taken me back to 1780 and I find many mixed marriages from then to now. I've met some of my white relatives from other branches of our family and one black family, all descended from a common ancester, Benjamin Lyons.
While searching for information has, at times, been difficult, it is not impossible.
If anyone is researching any of these names originating in Pennsylvania, I'd love to hear from you:
Lyons/Heck/Forsythe/Baptist/Criswell or Cresswell
Rose Mary
[b]Golly, Rose Mary hasn't committed suicide from the shame?
Quote:
Quote:
My Great Aunt who was my Grandmother's sister was born blond with blue eyes. She choice not to pass but did marry a white man. She had one son that was born with the same blue eyes. She was born in 1896 so we are dealing with the signs of the times.
Geraldine
Marriage to a "white man" is almost the same thing. The great questions most black-identified folks have in regard to mixed-whites are: "What is the official race of your spouse? What do your children look like?"
Quote:
Quote:
Sad to say, passing is still very much in fashion today. I know of a number of people right here here in Toledo, Ohio who are passing for white. They range in age from 40-65 years of age. Several are males and females in the realestate business,corporate executives and food industry. I knew some of them as playmates, others were friends of my mother and her brothers and sisters.
They become nervous when people from their childhood are around them and their "white friends". I would not out them but, if someone was to ask me about their racial background, I wouldn't lie!
Did it ever occur to you that these people are not following a "fashion" but being true to themselves? Why should they spend their lives constantly explaining to people why they are so UNBLACK?
Quote:
Quote:
I was at a meeting with my relatives planning a family cruise reunion and one of my cousin who knowsI do genealogy mentioned that one of our grandfather's sister passed for white. I could not believe that. Knowing how proud my grandfather was of his African-American background it was a shock to find out that one of his sister would do that. his father might have been white and his was pretty fair skin when he was younger, so he could have passed, but he didn't. I have been trying to find out who his father was, but I get comflicting stories about who the man could have been. Regardless, I think his sister was cowardly to do that.
Wasn't the sister actually "brave"? The grandfather and his ilk were only following orders, crying out "Unclean! Unclean!" like good lepers of the "inferior" caste. The younger sister ignored all the threats and horror stories directed against passers. That took courage, especially for a woman!
It shows that my grandfather had the courage to respect his hertiage when others probably didn't. To think that people are still doing it is absoultely pathetic. What is wrong with human beings? Why is it possible for animals who supposely have smaller brains, to love their children or adapt other species of animals regardless of what they look like, but humans can't get beyond skin color, social status, or sexual preference. When people pass, they need help from a psychiatrist.
YOU are the one who's mentally ill, honey. Real black men abandon their really black children every damn day. You don't worry about that. You spend your time worrying about the private lives of adults who have the nerve to believe that they aren't owned by YOU!
What I find most disturbing about all of this "passing" talk is the assumption that free American citizens in the 21st century don't (or shouldn't) have the right to self-determination concerning identity. Those who one drop those who see themselves - and wish to be considered by others as - white, bi/multi-racial, multi-ethnic, American, etc... are in essence saying "we know what's best concerning your identity. More so than you. You should call yourself and be considered by others as black, regardless of what you say and think. We are the authority."
bondage: the state of being under the control of another person.
Slavery is a condition of control over a person against their will, enforced by violence or other forms of coercion.
The ownership of a person by another individual.
I've obvioulsy only posted portions of the various definitions that I feel are pertinent to this discussion. IMHO those who consistently label black those who reject that label, are doing so out of a desire to own that person (in this case their racial identity) against their will. Much like a slavemaster treats his human property.
But in reality one-droppers can only own their OWN racial dentity. No one elses. I suppose this is what creates this angst, sorrow, and sometimes anger we see displayed in the writings of those who rail against the supposed horror of "passing". The realization that inspite of all of ones efforts, some bi/multi-racial heritaged white and ambiguous appearanced Americans - sometimes distant and not so distant relatives even - are going to live lives that make sense to the them personally regardless of what one droppers (even if family) say and think. Some people with "black blood" will inevidably consider themselves white. They'll date, marry, live, and raise their children white. This is a fact of life and it's really no one elses business. Just like some people with "white blood" will inevidably consider themselves and call themselves black. Date, marry, live, and raise their children to consider themselves black too.
We see this phenomenon every day. It's promoted in the media and is considered a normal part of life by many. Yet, the opposite is viewed by some as pathological. Sick. An abomination.
How can these double standards be fair? How can one droppers legitamize (and sometimes lionize) biracial heritaged individuals who call themselves black, at the same time demonize those who call themselves white?
Isn't "passing as white" the same thing as "passing as black"? I believe it's the same difference.
I can imagine however some will say it can never be considered the same because of the unequal balance-of-power many to most Americans would say still exists between whites and blacks. With white society having the upperhand. In other words, all people of some discernable amount of black ancestry should ban together under the same racial umbrella in order to "fight the system". "Defectors" (if known) have to be challenged and defamed in order to be "kept in line" for fear of losing numbers.
My problem with this mindset is it presumes group loyalties are more important than individual freedom and happiness. I for one believe it's more important to be true to and content with oneself.
Is claiming a black racial identity over a bi/multiracial, creole, white, etc... one (when one is perceived as being white or otherwise non black because of phenotype) viewed as more honorable and nobel by some because it's seen as more sacrifical in nature?
Just thinking out loud here... As always these are just my feelings. I know there are a number of different conflicting opinions regarding this controversial issue.
Last edited by zsana on Wed 24 May 2006 16:08; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Wed 24 May 2006 16:06 Post subject:
zsana wrote:
What I find most disturbing about all of this "passing" talk is the assumption that free American citizens in the 21st century don't (or shouldn't) have the right to self-determination concerning identity. Those who one drop those who see themselves - and wish to be considered by others as - white, bi/multi-racial, multi-ethnic, American, etc... are in essence saying "we know what's best concerning your identity.
There are certain life circumstances which lead people to have to deeply analyse the nature of identity. Bi/multi-racial, multi-ethnic in a color/"race" obsessed culture enforcing the ODR would be one of them. For others it comes from a highly creative disposition, always remaking, re-imaginging and 'performing' their identity for different 'audiences'.
Quote:
We see this phenomenon every day. It's promoted in the media and is considered a normal part of life by many. Yet, the opposite is viewed by some as pathological. Sick. An abomination.
How can these double standards be fair? How can one droppers legitamize (and sometimes lionize) biracial heritaged individuals who call themselves black, at the same time demonize those who call themselves white?
Isn't "passing as white" the same thing as "passing as black"? I believe it's the same difference.
I don't know. But, what happens when a "passing as white" individual is found by "white" people to have "black" ancestry, and what happens when a "passing as black" person is discovered by "black people" to have "white" ancestry?
But, what happens when a "passing as white" individual is found be "white" people to have "black" ancestry, and what happens when a person "passing as black" person is discovered by "black people" to have "white" ancestry?
These are very good questions indeed. IMO it would depend on the individual "white" or "black" person. Whether or not they had racist ideas concerning "purity" or not. I suspect most normal intelligent whites and blacks would not have a problem accepting as one of their own, people who looked like them - and shared the same culture - notwithstanding distant ancestry from the so called "opposite race".
I don't think you can make blanket statements in regards to this issue. Some "whites" and "blacks" would have a problem but others - perhaps the majority even depending on region - would not.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Wed 24 May 2006 16:31 Post subject:
That is so well-put, Felicia, that I don't have much to add. Everyone should have the right to self-identify, and no one should have the right to impose an identity on others.
There was a poster on the old Racial Myths forum who went by the monkier "L.K." She had a few bouts on I.V. with A.D. as well. She was of the opinion that anyone who knew of or even just suspected sub-Saharan ancestry in their family tree must identify as "Black" or they'd be denying their "Blackness." She failed to realize that phenotypically European individuals who have sub-Saharan ancestry wouldn't have much to gain by identifying as "Black" in our unfortunate society. But there are those who indeed embrace all of their ancestry, but because of their European appearance, identify as "White," and there is nothing wrong with this. She claimed to embrace all the facets of her ancestry, which, if I recall, included Scottish, French, Portuguese, Spanish, and Irish, in addition to African and Native. But she adopted a "Black" identity, despite her quite-European appearance. I tried to explain to her that a similar person who adopts a "White" identity is doing essentially the same thing: embracing all facets of the ancestry, but adopting one, which in this case has been adopted because it matches the phenotype.
This L.K. went a few steps further later on, maintaining adamantly that all Arabs and North Africans, despite their appearance, and all southern Europeans, must identify as "Black" due to a minor absorption of sub-Saharans in those areas. Truly ridiculous. The individuals on the forum to whom she directed these comments were scratching their heads, thinking, huh? This whole concept of invisible "Blackness" was truly foreign to them. Only in America.......
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Wed 24 May 2006 19:25 Post subject:
William adds an important context. All “passers” are not equal, simply because the society has not produced equality. Yes, many things depend on the how individuals response to testing situations, but individuals live within social and economic systems, networks and communities.
In a system/culture which disproportionately discriminaties against “blacks”, there is an indisputable secondary gain for someone with a European phenotype with recent African ancestry identifying as the favoured “race”.
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 {Posts: 300 } Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posted: Thu 25 May 2006 01:29 Post subject:
Since "passing for white" in the past involved separating oneself from one's family and community of origin, it should come as no surprise that some people will condemn "passers" as wrong, selfish, dishonest etc. People normally don't live as atomized individuals. They live as part of families and communities with histories and cultures that form a great part of their identities.
Leave any community or group with a strong sense of ancestral identity, and you will be the target of condemnation, distrust, bitterness. Ask anybody who grew up a Mormon and then tried to leave the church. Ask people who grew up as Orthodox Jews who were disowned by their families when they chose to marry outside the tribe.
These condemnations are, as I've noted in other threads, merely people expressing their opinions, something they are perfectly entitled to do.
The question I have is why is the good opinion of black Americans so important to people who have left that community anyway?
How are anyone's rights being curtailed if some black Americans call them black? It's only meaningful if you believe that black identity is a stigma you want desperately to free yourself from. Really, what does the average German American care if everyone thinks he's really Irish American?
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
