Talk of race is everywhere and incessant in America, the din of discourse emanating from all ranks and stations, all age groups, all creeds, all parts of the political spectrum and all manner of news and cultural media.
Is race real or is it imagined? If it's real, is it real in a biological sense, a social sense, or both? If imaginary, how did the idea arise?
Lawrence A. Hirschfeld, U-M associate professor of anthropology and psychology, tackles all of these questions in a book published this spring by the MIT Press: Race in the Making: Cognition, Culture and the Child's Construction of Human Kinds. The book emerged from Hirschfeld's studies in the United States and Europe of children's thinking about race. It will interest not only anthropologists, psychologists, philosophers, historians, political scientists and social workers, but parents and teachers as well. Professor Hirschfeld discussed some of his conclusions with Michigan Today's John Woodford.
MT: What is race?
LH: It is important to begin by talking about what race is not. Regardless of what our senses seem to tell us, race is not a biologically coherent story about human variation simply because the races we recognize and name are not biologically coherent populations. There is as much genetic variation within racial groups as there is between them. Now this does not mean that race is not real psychologically or sociologically. It is obvious that race is real in both these senses. People believe in races and they use this belief to organize important dimensions of social, economic, and political life. But this does not make race a real thing biologically.
In view of this, it makes more sense to think of race as an idea, not as a thing. Moreover, from what we know from the history of race relations, race is a bad idea. Considerable effort is now being made to rid ourselves of this particular idea, to create what is sometimes called a "colorblind" society. After 15 years of work on race as an idea, however, I've come to the conclusion that it is not merely a bad idea, but a deeply rooted bad idea. Our minds seem to be organized in a way that makes thinking racially---thinking that the human world can be segmented into discrete racial populations---an almost automatic part of our mental repertoire.
Indeed, I suggest that the idea of race emerges out of an evolved adaptation to understand humans as members of social groups. As such it may not be something that we can get rid of all that easily. This interpretation of racial thinking isn't all that far-fetched if you think about the sorts of problems our ancestral populations faced. Gaining accurate knowledge of who belonged to which group, and why, was clearly adaptive for members of a species whose existence is as social as ours. Those individuals equipped with this sort of knowledge were better able to assess accurately who was most likely to pose a threat and who probably did not. If racial thinking is derived in part from this sort of adaptation, it is very much a deep-rooted notion.
MT: Do you maintain, then, that racism is innate or inevitable?
LH: Definitely not. But structures that give humans the capacity to gather and organize certain kinds of knowledge are innate. These structures make it easy to conclude that people have essential, inheritable natures, and these are thought to give rise to other less obvious qualitative differences. Bear in mind that these structures make certain kinds of knowledge possible; they do not in themselves provide us with that knowledge. The cultural environment in which we live is equally important. In some sense we can say that these two things---the mind and the culture in which the mind finds itself---work together and make each other up.
Many people are uncomfortable with this thinking. There is great resistance to imagining that anything but learned culture---social influences---shapes beliefs like race that have political consequences. Indeed, it is widely assumed, despite the lack of evidence that it is the case, that we can go in and "redo" people's thinking simply by changing the cultural environment in which that thought occurs. But this strategy ignores what the mind as an adapted organ brings to the process of making race.
Maybe it's easier to see this if we consider less politicized aspects of common sense. We now know that Euclidean geometry and Newtonian mechanics are not accurate descriptions of the world. Still, our common-sense intuitions are well captured by both Euclidean geometry and Newtonian mechanics. In short, common sense, if not the physical world, is well described by these systems of thought. To be sure, we can learn other systems for describing the physical world, for example Riemannian geometry or quantum physics. But we can't unlearn common sense. Race is like Euclidean geometry in this regard. We can learn that it is an inaccurate description of the world, but that doesn't mean that it disappears from our conceptual arsonal.
This has consequences for what we teach children about race. Telling children that we're all the same inside, that race is unimportant and literally skin deep, may make us feel better about ourselves but probably doesn't do much to shape children's thinking. Nor does telling children that they shouldn't have racialist beliefs---beliefs that people are divided into discrete racial groups---do much more than make them anxious. When adults tell children that something they know to be the case is not the case, it is anxiety-provoking. It is not, however, a very effective way to change belief. Imagine how successful you'd be in getting someone to lose weight by telling them that they weren't hungry.
MT: Does this have implications for what children feel toward members of other groups?
LH: Yes. Studies show that by age 3, children have developed quite negative attitudes toward outgroup members. Many people believe that children learn these attitudes passively by modeling their beliefs after the important adults (usually parents) around them. As the saying goes, "As the twig is bent so grows the tree." I'm not sure that this is so, however. The studies we have conducted lend little support either to the claim that children are pliant learners nor to the contention that parents play a critical role in shaping children's attitudes. The twig may be bent, but it is not necessarily the parents that are doing the bending. In fact, it may be the twig that's setting its own course.
Again, this makes sense if we think of race as emerging out of an evolved adaptation to group living. Social groups are part of the social landscape and learning about them is best served by attention to that broad landscape. Children learn about race by having their attention directed to what the community as a whole believes, not by having their attention directed solely to what their parents believe.
This sort of process is not unique to race. Immigrants who speak with strong accents do not have children who speak in accented English. They don't because their children do not attend only to their parents' speech. They are also guided by the speech of others around them, even if that speech is less frequently encountered than parental speech. In the same way, the broad cultural environment shapes children's racial beliefs because of the way children tend to "listen." When learning about race, the child's task is to find information relevant to the nature of social difference, and culture is saturated with this sort of information. Much of it confirms that racial differences are fundamental and deep, so it isn't a surprise that children come to the same conviction quite precociously.
Look at the way race is portrayed on television---a source of information even our youngest children spend a lot of time "studying." For every episode of The Cosby Show a kid watches, he sees dozens of athletic shoe ads. These ads depict blacks as animal-like and dangerous, engaged in violent "games" of basketball played on inner-city courts and viewed through chain-link fences. When the child sees whites in these ads, they tend to be portrayed as disciplined, focused and controlled, running in parks or working out on sparkling exercise machines. What message do we expect children to take away from this?
MT: Do Americans tend to outgrow such views?
LH: Not automatically. Certainly few adults openly express such "raw" negative attitudes as "blacks are lazy," something that most preschool children are willing to say. But that doesn't mean that the less direct, less obvious, expressions of prejudiced belief disappear as we grow older.
Let me give you an example from some work I did recently. One of the principal ways that unequal economic and political power has been maintained in the United States is by racializing access to that power. This in turn has rested on maintaining discrete racial populations despite the high rates of racial mixing that have always occurred.
The "one-drop of blood rule" has been critical to maintaining the fiction of discrete racial populations. According to the one-drop rule, a person is black if they have any traceable black ancestry. Our studies found that white children seem to learn the one-drop rule during middle childhood. But that wasn't the most striking finding. I was amazed to discover that the vast majority of my colleagues---people who would have been mortified had I suggested that they hold racist beliefs---also have great faith in the one-drop rule. In particular, virtually all of them accepted that minority racial features like dark skin color or curly hair are genetically dominant over majority racial features like lighter skin and straight hair. For them, the one-drop rule is literally rooted in biology.
I was originally interested, however, in discovering when children learn the one-drop rule precisely because it has no basis in biology. Dark skin doesn't genetically dominate lighter shades. Common sense in this regard is insensible. The absurdity of the biological reading of the one-drop rule is obvious if we rephrase it. How reasonable is it to say that a white woman can give birth to a black baby but a black woman can't give birth to a white baby? Obviously, not very reasonable.
Of course, there is nothing inherently racist about a social use of the one-drop rule. It is a way of affirming group membership in a situation of great hybridity. In contemporary America there are good reasons for individuals with black and white parents to declare themselves black. This is especially true today when identity politics play an important role in the distribution of many resources. The key thing here is to see that identity is not based in biology despite the historic perception that it is.
MT: How would you attack what you call "a deeply rooted bad idea"?
LH: Although my book is principally a detailed description of children's beliefs about race, I hope that it can also help us find ways to teach more effectively about the meaning of race.
Two approaches come to mind. One would be to teach about race the way we teach modern physics. We don't expect our students to abandon common-sense intuitions about the physical world just because they take a course in physics, even if the coursework shows that common sense is inaccurate. Indeed, we design college courses precisely to teach students to reason about the world in a way that may seem bizarre given common sense.
The corollary in teaching about race is to try to develop in children alternative styles of reasoning about human difference. Doing this would involve showing how much of our common sense about race is contrived psychologically, historically and culturally. For instance, it is part of both children's and adults' common sense that all we need to do to discover who is black and who is white is open our eyes and look. We may be able to shake a child's confidence in this if we point out that 70 years ago in our country, the Irish, Jews and Italians weren't seen as "white." The term "race riots" during this period was used to describe conflicts between whites and Italians as well as between whites and blacks. Who is white and who is not is a matter of politics, not biology, and it is important that our children understand this.
A second approach is to give younger children a sense of how dangerous categorization by race can be. Much teaching about race turns on telling children that race counts for little or that it counts for fairly superficial differences. This is an attractive idea but one that takes little account of how much race in fact is used to regulate resources and opportunity. The vast majority of whites don't acknowledge how much racism pervades our society and shapes the daily lives of blacks. Perhaps this is something that we should bring to our children's attention, not something that we should be helping them ignore.
MT: It seems you believe that adults have as much to learn as children.
LH: Most probably do. Too many of us fail to realize how much America racializes the environment and imputes to race qualities that simply are not there. We use race to index poverty and disadvantage. This is the rationale for racially based affirmative action, which I strongly support.
The problem is that in using race in this way, we risk coming to believe that there is actually a causal connection between race and poverty. We risk interpreting poverty racially because we are confident that poverty is often racially distributed. We do this not because there is a causal link between the things that make one a member of a minority race and the things that make one poor (although too many people are willing to make this claim). We do this because race is so deeply held that we are invited by our conceptual endowment to make the link.
The phenomena of race and poverty are not causally linked. It is the beliefs that we hold about race and poverty that are causally linked. In fact, however, people find it all too easy to imagine that race causes lots of things (say athletic prowess or intelligence). In part they do so because it is easy to believe that racial material gets inherited as a clump. The idea that there is such a thing as "black blood"---a coherent genetic racial structure transmitted from parents to children---is widely accepted. But there is no such thing as racial genetic material. This is why trying to explain the distribution of a complex biological adaptation like intelligence by reference to race makes little sense.
The people who accept The Bell Curve's argument that race is biological destiny are not the only ones who have something to learn in this regard. The government has been equally willing to use race to do a lot of work ranging from drawing Congressional districts to identifying who is eligible to participate in antipoverty programs. The logic of this strategy is the same as we talked about earlier. Race is an index of something else, in this case political disenfranchisement and unequal access to resources.
But wouldn't it be better to frame the question in a way that allows us to actually find out why people experience disadvantage rather than filter it through racial categories? The problem is not that we use heuristics---strategies that simplify the world in order to get a grasp on it. The Bohr atom (the image of the atom as a mini-version of the solar system) was both inaccurate and useful in advancing theory in physics. The problem is that with race we're using a heuristic that is particularly seductive and powerful. We invite ourselves to misunderstand the world through racially colored glasses and then congratulate ourselves for the clarity of our perceptions.
Using race to stand in for material disadvantage is not simply misleading, it is a strategy that appeals literally to our worse instincts. Because of the depth of these instincts, it is difficult to see past our strategic use of an idea to what we really want to know. In many areas of policy making---education, health care, housing---I can't help but believe that it would it be better to address the underlying structural problems that produce inequality rather than traffic in biases our conceptual endowment has prepared us for. These biases may be helpful ways to start unpacking the world's structure, but inevitably they impoverish our ability to penetrate that structure.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Thu 01 Jun 2006 20:18 Post subject: Re: SEEING RACE
Lawrence A. Hirschfeld wrote:
I was originally interested, however, in discovering when children learn the one-drop rule precisely because it has no basis in biology. Dark skin doesn't genetically dominate lighter shades. Common sense in this regard is insensible.
Has the child already learned about “race” (skin color) at that point? One “common sense” children have which later becomes a joke is that blackness is paint - NOT that whiteness is an absence of paint. What are children learning, when they learn the ODR?
Quote:
The absurdity of the biological reading of the one-drop rule is obvious if we rephrase it. How reasonable is it to say that a white woman can give birth to a black baby but a black woman can't give birth to a white baby? Obviously, not very reasonable.
It is absurd. The corrolary of the babies from a black women’s wombs being born life long slaves couple hundred years ago.
Quote:
Of course, there is nothing inherently racist about a social use of the one-drop rule. It is a way of affirming group membership in a situation of great hybridity.
Affirming group membership is fine but not enhancing a group's hierarchical dominance.
Quote:
The key thing here is to see that identity is not based in biology despite the historic perception that it is.
Is he saying identity is not based in appearance...neither personal nor the biology of the woman whose womb you emerge from?
Quote:
Who is white and who is not is a matter of politics, not biology, and it is important that our children understand this.
Correct. Social and political constructs. I wouldn’t expect this kind of politics to be tacked before age 11 in school. Still the school message has to contend with the reality outside the school gates.
Posted: Thu 01 Jun 2006 20:33 Post subject: Re: SEEING RACE
Altertude wrote:
Has the child already learned about “race” (skin color) at that point? One “common sense” children have which later becomes a joke is that blackness is paint - NOT that whiteness is an absence of paint. What are children learning, when they learn the ODR?
Never heard that one. But higher percentage of one group could lead the smaller group to beleive that the smaller group has been altered somehow.
Quote:
It is absurd. The corrolary of the babies from a black women’s wombs being born life long slaves couple hundred years ago.
It is not a correlary. There was no one drop rule then. If the black woman was free the baby was free.
Posted: Thu 01 Jun 2006 20:42 Post subject: Re: SEEING RACE
Altertude wrote:
Has the child already learned about “race” (skin color) at that point?
"Race" and skin tone are two very different things, of course. Otherwise, Gregory Howard Williams would be White and Dinesh D'Souza would be Black. In any event, Lawrence A. Hirschfeld has done some important ground-breaking (and now multiply-confirmed) research on just how and at what ages U.S. children internalize different facets of the nation's peculiar "race" notion. Anyone interested in this will find Hirschfeld's work summarized in the "How U.S. Children Learn to See Two Endogamous Groups" section of The Perception of “Racial” Traits.
Posted: Thu 01 Jun 2006 20:52 Post subject: Re: SEEING RACE
Salsassin wrote:
There was no one drop rule then. If the black woman was free the baby was free.
Indeed. If parentage was unknown, then the law throughout the antebellum nation was that if a person had any discernable European blood at all, then he was presumed to be free and the alleged slaveowner had to prove to the preponderance of evidence that his mother had been a slave. I guess you could say that the one-drop rule did exist during slavery--if you had a drop of White, you were presumed to be free. (See "The One-Drop Rule was Unrelated to Slavery" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_theory.)
I am a writer (novelist, mainly) living in NY. About two weeks ago or so, I followed a link to this site found on another online group of which I am a member. I've been lurking on this site daily ever since. The information I've found here is intriguing. Much of which was previously unknown to me, as I'm sure it is still unknown to the vast majority of the world.
What troubles me is that all the data seems to conclude that, genetically, there is really no longer a such thing as Blacks; with the exception of those indigenous to the Sub-Sahara region. Furthermore, those, like myself, who are light-skin Blacks are confused; as we do not exist either.
For the sake of the discussion, each of my four grandparents was something different. My maternal grandmother was Scots-Irish/French Canadian from Nova Scotia born in 1921. My maternal grandfather was born in Harlem, NY 1909. His mother, my maternal g-grandmother, was born in 1888 in Virginia of a White (Irish) mother DOB ?1858 and a Black father DOB ?1845. He, my maternal g-g-grandfather, was a first generation American-born African. His father, my g-g-g-grandfather, of the Ewe people, had been captured in Togo, West Africa and brought to this country to South Carolina as a slave. My paternal grandmother is a full-blooded Native American born in 1929 in North Carolina. Yet, she is considered a half-breed because she is both Tsalagi (Iroquoian) and Blackfoot (Algonquin). She is my only surviving grandparent. My paternal grandfather, born in 1923, was from British Guyana. He was of Black (father) and East Indian (mother) (dot not feather) extract. So, I have a White grandmother, a Native American grandmother, a Black grandfather by way of West Africa (with one known White grandparent) and a Black/East Indian grandfather by way of South America. My paternal grandfather came to the U.S. circa 1935 to South Carolina and settled in with the Gullah community. Circa 1940 his family moved to North Carolina where he met my paternal grandmother. I don't know the full story but somehow they ended up in New York around 1943. My paternal grandmother was a child-bride. My maternal grandmother, along with her mother and three sisters, arrived in New York from Nova Scotia in 1937.
Here's the thing, each of my four grandparents identified as Coloreds; the accepted term for Blacks at the time. Yes, including my White maternal grandmother from Nova Scotia. She used to say that in 1940 NY (where she met and married my Black maternal grandfather) that it was easier for her to define herself as a Colored woman who appeared White and married to an obviouly Black man than it was for her to openly be a White woman who married a Black man and gave birth to seven Black children. My mother being one of those seven children.
My Native American paternal grandmother gives what to me is an evermore astonishing reason for identifying herself as a Colored woman. Because she was considered a half-breed by being neither full-Iroquoian nor full-Algonquin, yet full Native American, she was never totally accepted by either Indian (feather not dot) community. Yet, via her marriage to my Black/East Indian paternal grandfather, the Black (Colored) community embraced her as one of their own. The Black community thought of her as being no more than just another very light-skin Black woman with straight hair. She and my grandfather went on the have seven children as well. My father being one of them.
I have twenty-eight first cousins. In my family you will see the full gamut of skin tones, everything from purple-Black (showing no signs of White, East Indian or Native American ancestry) to lily-White (showing no signs of Black, East Indian or Native American ancestry), the full gamut of features, hair textures and hair and eye colors.
Both my mother and father are light-skin Blacks with brown fine-curly hair and each has brown eyes. My father' lips are full "Black lips". His nose is what would be perceived as a "White nose" (high bridge and thin nostrils). My mother's lips are thin "White lips" and her nose would be perceived as a "Black nose" (rounded nostrils). I have a younger brother, 34, who, for some reason, looks Arabic.
Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I'd like to offer a description of myself. As a toddler, I was often mistaken for White. My skin was fair and my fine-curly hair was red. As I've gotten older my skin darkened to a yellow-tan complexion and my curly hair darkened to a chestnut shade. My hair has never been chemically processed, i.e. relaxed or permed, yet somehow over the years it's lost its curl and has become wavy/straight-coarse. The hair around my hairline is kinky. With a little water and hair gel it becomes straight. But it feels like a helmet and itches terribly so, I don't bother to hide my "roots". I have high cheekbones, a stroing jaw line, a broad face, and a five-finger forehead. My brown eyes are slightly slanted, some call them "almond-shaped". My lips are not as full as my father's yet, not as thin as my mother's. I have a high bridge to my nose, like my father, yet my nostrils are rounded like my mother's. Therefore, since the age of 10, and to this very day, I'm often mistaken for Hispanic or Latino (a). Others have referred to me as "exotic", and unsure of my ethnic origin. Whenever I correct anyone believing I am of Latino extract i am then considered a light-skin Black by both Blacks and Whites. I'm lighter than Halle Berry and Thandie Newton but darker than Mariah Carey and Jennifer Beals, if that helps. Some Blacks have referred to me as "high-yella" or "redbone". My blue eyed, blond haired, fair skinned Puerto Rican ex-boyfriend used to affectionately call me "Chocolate" (pronounced: cho-co-lah-tay). I have to admit that one is my favorite. Although I never understood why I would be considered "Chocolate" considering the color of chocolate. He'd explained to me that what is meant by "Chocolate" is that my skin color is "creamy" like milk chocolate. What a tasty euphemism!
In the mid 80's, when I first began wearing make-up, I could never find my shade. Foundations and loose powders made by White cosmetic companies were too light. Foundations and loose powders made by Black cosmetic companies were too dark. I had to purchase the darkest shade available at White cosmetic companies and the lightest shade available at Black cosmetic companies and mix them together myself to match my skin tone. I recall in the late 80's a few cosmetic companies began custom blending foundations and loose powders. Though expensive, I immediately took advantage of this and had my make-up custom blended by Charles of the Ritz. The process seemed very sophisticated at the time. Everything was computerized and measurements were taken. My eyes were measured, as were my nose and lips; the width of my face--horizontally and vertically--and the distance between my eyes. My hair texture was even analyzed. There were three categories: White, Black and Asian. After the beauty expert keyed in my skin tone, skin undertones, hair texture, hair color, eye color, and the measurements of my features, my printout revealed that I was an Asian woman. Thankfully today there are more options available from both Black and White cosmetic companies and I no longer have to spend a small fortune on my make-up or play chemist in my bathroom.
I have four sons. My ex-husband is a dark-skin Black man of Jamaican, Haitian, Dominican and Ghanaian heritage. He speaks English, French, Spanish, Haitian Creole ( a hodgepodge of several West African dialects, French, Spanish and English), and a Ghanaian language called Twe. My oldest two boys are closest in skin tone to me. My eldest son's lips are thin and his brown eyes are very, VERY slanted--a characteristic of our Native American heritage? He is often mistaken as part Asian; even Asians think he's part Asian. My second eldest son looks Hispanic. His hair is straight-course, his lips are full and his eyes are light brown. My third son is darker than me, lighter than his father, with a light-medium brown complexion. Yet, his features are all Anglo and his hair is fine-curly. Bothi his eyes and hair are brown. He likes cornrows and his hair falls below his shoulders. He is lighter than most obvious Blacks and therefore considered light-skin by many Blacks. My youngest son has a fair-yellow skin tone with hazel-green eyes and auburn kinky hair which is blond and straight in texture along his hairline. During spring and summer, his hair lightens to a light auburn (almost strawberry blond) and platinum blond highlights appear throughout his hair. This happens every year. He's 5, 6 in September, and the hair on his arms and legs is coming in blond. His lips are thin yet his nose is a typical? Black nose--flat bridge and rounded nostrils.
I self-identify as either Black or Black Indian (both feather and dot). Until recently so did my children. Recently, however, my eldest two sons, 16 and 15, have began referring to themselves as "mixed". This has influenced my third son, 8. He, too, is now referring to himself as mixed. Though, with his skin tone, a mixed identity would be viewed as self-hating by many Blacks and perhaps some Whites as well. My five-year-old, who doesn't know any better, thinks he's White.
I'm having a hard time here, folks. In a perfect world, race, features, skin tone, hair texture, ancestry and ethnicity wouldn't mean a thing. Yet, in the real world, especially here in the USA, with its history of slavery, massacre and genocide of Native American nations, segregation, one drop rule, Jim Crow, Black Codes, passing, Grandfather Laws, Dawes Rolls, Freedman's Act, CDIB cards, Trail of Tears, etc; race, features, skin tone, hair texture, ancestry and ethnicity matter and they matter BIG time.
In my never-humble opinion, it would be foolish of me, if not downright asinine, to self-identify as mulatto, MGM, mixed, Creole, other, biracial, multiracial or White if mainstream society does not accept me as such. In mainstream American, with the exception of White, all of those other identities boil down to Black, on a good day. On a bad day they boil down to nigger, and you are treated accordingly. If there appears to be any hint of African ancestry in a person, regardless to how many generations removed, and regardless to that person being genetically European or Indian or Asian, etc; that individual is viewed as Black in this country (and many others) and IS TREATED ACCORDINGLY. Therefore, self-identifying otherwise becomes a futile act.
So what if the one drop rule is a farce. This is not the first, or only, fraud perpetrated by the American government. Fact is, an individual's genetic breakdown is not visible. However, most individuals' African ancestry is. You can call yourself whatever you like, as a writer I am all for freedom of expression. But unless you plan on not being a member of American society you must be concious that if what you consider yourself isn't what mainstream America considers you, you are bringing forth additional unnecessary headaches in your life.
The story I often hear from the vast majority of mixed Black/White people is, outside of their immediate family, they are NOT accepted by Blacks or Whites. However, these "mixies" seek to embrace all cultures which came together to create them when these cultures do not seek to embrace them at all. Marvelous. Yet, the ones who identify solely as Black at least solve half of their problem. As for Blacks who look White--if they choose to disassociate themselves from all of their blood relatives who can "out" them and can get away with calling themselves White--more power to them. It wouldn't be the first time and certainly won't be the last. Again, half of their problem would be solved.
You see, throughout the world every society has its views on race and ethnicity. Societies like that which is comfortable and convenient. Whenever someone doesn't neatly fit into any one particular category which society has set in place, society becomes uncomfortable and inconvenienced. Let's face it, mixed people are an inconvenience who make society uncomfortable. I think anyone with half a brain realizes that today you'd be hardpressed to find someone who is 100% anything. Yet, society at large only wishes to acknowledge that fact on a subconscious level. On a conscious level, society at large only wishes to acknowledge that which is obvious. Therefore, if you look like you're Black, even a little bit, you're Black. See how easy it is?
Also, as I have fastidiously pointed out to my former blond/blue-eyed, fair skinned Puerto Rican boyfriend who thought of himself as White, Latinos and/or Hispanics as we know them today came into existence as a direct result of the slave trade. Prior to the slave trade there was no such thing as a Latino or Hispanic. It is via the intermixture with the native inhabitants of the respective countries throughout what is today known as Latin America, Africans (slaves) and Europeans (mostly Spaniards--who themselves are a bastard "race") that Latinos became Latinos. Therefore, how could any Latino identify solely as White? Because they look White? Nonsense! Ask a Scandinavian or Irishman what he thinks a person is who appears to be White by the name "Juan Gutierrez". "Juan" will get a rude awakening.
Obviously, I don't consider ANY Latino White. Neither does ANY mainstream society at large. Some Latinos are only considered White in their specific Latino country of origin, which is just as bad, if not worse, than the ODR. Fair skin, light hair and eyes, and straight hair are considered superior and desirable. That is a racist attitude and the product of centuries of oppression and brainwashing carried out by the same White (Europeans) they strive so dearly to emulate and be accepted as. Yet, when they travel outside their countries of origin, the rules change greatly.
You are what society says you are. Not what you say you are. I know of many Greeks, Italians, Turkish, Arabs, Pakistanis, East Indians, North Africans (Egyptians, Tunisians and Moroccans) and Latinos who adamantly refuse to be called White. However, I reiterate, you are what society says you are. Not what you say you are. And every society, as we know, has its own agenda. For this reason, I never question a person's Blackness. I question their Whiteness. I also question their motives for wanting to be White. Ours is not a perfect world, folks. But if you decide to be a productive part of this world, you have to play by the rules--however unfair, however inaccurate. You cannot make up the rules to suit your needs as you go along. That's what you call a social outcast. NOBODY wants you.
I'm sure this post will be met with outrage by most of you. I'll be called a racist or a dreaded "one-dropper". I expect and understand and even respect that. Although, I prefer to think of myself as a realist. But please, please don't post genetic data to make your point. I, admittedly, do not know enough about genetics to intelligently argue those positions. It is also my understanding that for every genetic analysis that claims one thing there is a genetic analysis which claims the opposite. Genetic analyses vary too widely, depending upon the study group and its control group, to prove any theories with 100% accuracy. They can only disprove theories with 100% accuracy, as I understand it. Furthermore, I believe wholeheartedly that one's outer appearance often is NOT in agreement with one's biological make-up. What I am therefore arguing here are social and cultural dictates based on one's appearance, the history of one's country of origin and yes, even ethnic minority given names and surnames.
You see, while I don't believe it is prudent to make up the rules to suit your needs as you go along, I DO believe that many rules SHOULD be and CAN be changed. Perhaps not in your or my lifetime. But maybe we can get the ball rolling and leave the world a little better for our great-grandchildren. The problem, as I see it, with mainstream society at large is that it teaches "racial tolerance" when it ought to teach "racial acceptance". Then anyone can feel free to self-identify as he/she sees fit. If you are purple-Black yet feel most comfortable with Whites, call yourself White. If you are lily-White yet feel most comfortable with Blacks, call yourself Black. I'll still call myself Black however. And light-skin. I feel Black. I think Black. And, to me, I look Black. Yet, I admit that I may not be Black genetically.
Until such time however, when everyone is free to be whatever they feel like being, self-identifying as anything other than what mainstream society views you as is a moot point. But that doesn't mean you can't be behind the scenes bringing about productive change adopted by mainstream society at large at a later time. All rules every society has in place, good and bad, began as ideas.
I'll never forget the time I was riding the subway, ten, twelve years ago. I noticed a Black man staring at me. After a few minutes, he rose and approached me. He said, "I guess you noticed I was looking at you." I nodded. He went on to say, "I way trying to figure out a way to ask you what you are without offending you. But then I realized if I have to ask then I already know. Have a good day, SIS." We smiled at each other and he boarded off the train.
Don't feel like writing out a long response right now, but from the bat i can tell you that there are plenty of latinos that are considered White in this culture. And many of them have African ancestry.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Sun 04 Jun 2006 21:22 Post subject:
urban scribe wrote:
What troubles me is that all the data seems to conclude that, genetically, there is really no longer a such thing as Blacks; with the exception of those indigenous to the Sub-Sahara region. Furthermore, those, like myself, who are light-skin Blacks are confused; as we do not exist either.
Quote:
Furthermore, I believe wholeheartedly that one's outer appearance often is NOT in agreement with one's biological make-up.
An Autosomal test may give you something objective to describe yourself as comprising. Here are a few recent discussions of Autosomal versus Y-chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA.
I have twenty-eight first cousins. In my family you will see the full gamut of skin tones, everything from purple-Black (showing no signs of White, East Indian or Native American ancestry) to lily-White (showing no signs of Black, East Indian or Native American ancestry), the full gamut of features, hair textures and hair and eye colors.
Beautifully diverse raindow family. Love that "feather" and "dot", "Indian" clarifier.
Quote:
Although I never understood why I would be considered "Chocolate" considering the color of chocolate. He'd explained to me that what is meant by "Chocolate" is that my skin color is "creamy" like milk chocolate. What a tasty euphemism!
Chocolate comes in all colors these days, perhaps he meant white chocolate.
Quote:
There were three categories: White, Black and Asian. After the beauty expert keyed in my skin tone, skin undertones, hair texture, hair color, eye color, and the measurements of my features, my printout revealed that I was an Asian woman. Thankfully today there are more options available from both Black and White cosmetic companies and I no longer have to spend a small fortune on my make-up or play chemist in my bathroom.
Quote:
My youngest son has a fair-yellow skin tone with hazel-green eyes and auburn kinky hair which is blond and straight in texture along his hairline. During spring and summer, his hair lightens to a light auburn (almost strawberry blond) and platinum blond highlights appear throughout his hair. This happens every year. He's 5, 6 in September, and the hair on his arms and legs is coming in blond. His lips are thin yet his nose is a typical? Black nose--flat bridge and rounded nostrils.
I self-identify as either Black or Black Indian (both feather and dot). Until recently so did my children. Recently, however, my eldest two sons, 16 and 15, have began referring to themselves as "mixed". This has influenced my third son, 8. He, too, is now referring to himself as mixed. Though, with his skin tone, a mixed identity would be viewed as self-hating by many Blacks and perhaps some Whites as well. My five-year-old, who doesn't know any better, thinks he's White.
In light of the work of Lawrence A. Hirschfeld on "Seeing Race", (and Frank's essay "The Perception of “Racial” Traits") it would be interesting to know if it is purely your youngest son's appearance which leads him to think he is white.
Quote:
In my never-humble opinion, it would be foolish of me, if not downright asinine, to self-identify as mulatto, MGM, mixed, Creole, other, biracial, multiracial or White if mainstream society does not accept me as such. In mainstream American, with the exception of White, all of those other identities boil down to Black, on a good day. On a bad day they boil down to nigger, and you are treated accordingly.
Coming from a family which bisects the U.S endogamous color line so completely, I bet you've had ample opportunity to observe first hand how different skin tones effect the way people are treated—the "race" they are perceived to belong in.
Quote:
Yet, the ones who identify solely as Black at least solve half of their problem. As for Blacks who look White--if they choose to disassociate themselves from all of their blood relatives who can "out" them and can get away with calling themselves White--more power to them. It wouldn't be the first time and certainly won't be the last. Again, half of their problem would be solved.
Quote:
Therefore, how could any Latino identify solely as White? Because they look White? Nonsense! Ask a Scandinavian or Irishman what he thinks a person is who appears to be White by the name "Juan Gutierrez". "Juan" will get a rude awakening.
As for Blacks who look White--if they choose to disassociate themselves from all of their blood relatives who can "out" them and can get away with calling themselves White--more power to them.
I think this is deeply in error. I know many people (both Puerto Ricans and Anglos) who look White and are seen as White in U.S. society despite having dark relatives. Indeed, I am one myself, and have many relatives with similar traits. Not one such person of my acquaintance has "disassociated themselves from all of their blood relatives." Not one. I would dearly like to know where urban scribe gets this information.
urban scribe wrote:
Nonsense! Ask a Scandinavian or Irishman what he thinks a person is who appears to be White by the name "Juan Gutierrez". "Juan" will get a rude awakening.
Again, this flies in the face of all available evidence. As Coreen Brown (our local U.S. congresswoman) explained to two Mexican-American U.S. cabinet members, "All you White men look alike to me."
Urban Scribe is entitled to opinions. But when opinions are stated as blunt facts (as these were), then the policy of this website is to demand sources.
Obviously, fwsweet, you come from a forward thinking set of relatives. I'm glad to hear that. However, I haven't been as fortunate. As I've stated I have very fair "White" looking relatives. Not all of these "White" looking relatives, but a disproportionate number, won't have anything to do with us. By us I mean my very dark "Black" looking relatives and even my relatives who, like myself, don't look "all White" or "all Black". So, mostly I based and stand by that statement on personal experience within my own family. These "White" relatives of mine have all married other Whites and distanced themselves both emotionally and physically from their Black family. Some have moved out of state, others have moved out of the country to avoid being affiliated with their Black relatives. It's heartbreaking to know that these attitudes still exist today. But I can attest that they do.
Also, historically, didn't mullatoes, quadroons and octaroons who passed as White move great distances from their Black families in order to blend into White society? Yes, they did. That's incredibly hard to do if your mother is obviously Black and living next door, or in the same small town even. The only way they could have successfully passed was by disassociating themselves with anything and everything that identified them as Black. I point to CLOTEL. In fact, I point to the whole Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings fiasco.
I'm sorry, but I don't know how to insert quotes. I'd love to learn. But to answer your second question:
I'm not familiar with Coreen Brown, but judging from her statement she needs to brush up on her history. I realize that many Latinos, Blacks and many other ethnic groups can appear White and easily blend into mainstream White society. But with ethnic minority names such as Aviles, Olivos, Rodriguez, Sanchez, Jimenez, Abdul, Ali, Habib, Sahi, Mandela, Mfume ... you get the idea, I'm sure, those names are dead giveaways to the O'Reillys, O'Neils, Murphys, Vanderbilts, Van Dykes and Van der Waals of the world that you are not White in the sense that they are White and, therefore, not one of them.
As such, minorities who appear White but have ethnic names are excluded from their exclusive clubs; unless they're there to mop the floors or set the tables. And are excluded from their inner circle. As much as we don't like to acknowledge it, racism and segregation are still alive and well today--they're just more subtle about it. So, looking White is not enough to be fully accepted as White by mainstream White society. How many Jews have changed their names from Bloomstein to Brown? How many Latinos have changed their names from Guillermo to William? How many Italians have changed their names from Rossellini to Ross? They did this so they can "disappear" into White society without any identifiers to their background which would lead mainstream Whites to believe them, and treat them, less than White no matter how White they may appear.
Again, I don't question what anyone may be genetically. How can I? And I don't object to how anyone chooses to self-identify. What I question is:
1) Are those self-identities socially and culturally realistic?
2) What motivates many to choose self-identities which would render them socially and culturally less Black?
It seems urban scribe is confusing Nordic with White. And the fact is many Latino people are seen as White without a problem. Ask Sylvestre Stallone if he is not seen as White. Or Andy Garcia. Or Raquell Welch, or Anthony Quinn. Or Don Johnson. Or Emilio Estevez, Charlie Sheen, Martin Sheen. Or Cameron Diaz, Or Christina Aguilera, Or Ricky Martin Etc, All latinos. All White. And seen as such.
Salsassin, I'm using White in its general sense. The way most people who are not learned in anthopology, biology, etc. would use it.
Also, all of the celebrities you've mentioned are NOT perceived as White by the media. I cannot tell you how many times I've heard interviews on these people and the anchors/entertainment reporters were quick to note that this one is half-Irish and half-Mexican, that one is a Cuban-American, the other one is half-Cherokee. Cher comes to mind. She is not perceived as White she is perceived as half-Native American and half-White. I've even heard her talk about how "dark" she is and how growing up she yearned to be fair and blond and blue eyed like her full-White sister. The same for Eva Longoria. In every interview I've seen her in she talks about how dark and ugly she was perceived as when she was a child. I believe she is Mexican. Ricky Martin has been repeatedly describe as the sex symbol from the 80's Puerto Rican teen rock group Menudo. These distinctions are quickly made in each and every interview or story I've ever seen on anyone on the list you've mentioned. If you are so inclined, you can probably easily access these archived interviews on ET, 20/20, Access Hollywood, E!, 60 Minutes and just about any other entertainment programs.
My question is: why does the media feel it necessary to point out the partial ethnicity of these celebrities if they really believe them to be and accept them as White?
No one ever says "Oh, look at White Nicole Kidman. Is she White or what! Look how White Nicole Kidman is. Oh, she's just so White, White, White."
That's because Nicole Kidman, with her gorgeous alabaster skin, is genuinely accepted as White by mainstream society. Austrailian, I believe. However, the celebrities you've listed are not genuinely accepted as White by mainstream society. The fact that the media never misses an opportunity to point out their ethnicity proves it.
Also, historically, didn't mullatoes, quadroons and octaroons who passed as White move great distances from their Black families in order to blend into White society? Yes, they did.
That's incredibly hard to do if your mother is obviously Black and living next door, or in the same small town even. The only way they could have successfully passed was by disassociating themselves with anything and everything that identified them as Black.
Not true. This assumes that neighbors care whether a White person has a Black mother living nearby. For much of U.S. history, and in many regions (especially the deep South) this was seen as normal. It is still normal today in east coast U.S. Hispanic communities and in much of Louisiana.
urban scribe wrote:
I point to CLOTEL. In fact, I point to the whole Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings fiasco.
Urban Scribe cites a fictional novel that preaches the ODR as a evidence of factual reality. It is unpersuasive evidence. Clotel; or, The President’s Daughter: A Narrative of Slave Life in the United States (1853) by William Wells Brown was the first "passing" novel written by an American. It was fiction. It was for a northern audience. It openly advocated the ODR. See The Invention of the One-Drop Rule in the 1830s North for details.
The factual reality of Eston Hemings's life would be persuasive, if accurate. But Urban Scribe is horribly mistaken about the "Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings fiasco." Eston Hemings was freed by his father’s will in 1826. He set up house in Charlottesville as a White man. As Jefferson had foreseen, Hemings was accepted as a member of the White endogamous group “and a citizen of the United States.” He was recorded as White in the Charlottesville census of 1830. He did not “pass for White” in the sense of deceiving anyone. There was no deception. Charlottesville had only a few hundred residents at the time. Sally had moved in with her son and she was listed as “colored” in the same census. Eston, his mother, Sally, and his wife, Julia Ann Isaacs (also a White person with an insignificant touch of known African ancestry), moved to Chillicothe Ohio after 1830. After his mother’s death, Eston and his family moved to Wisconsin as members of the White endogamous group and changed their surname to “Jefferson.” Their children were accepted as White. Their descendants still live on the White side of America’s endogamous color line today. At no time did they ever deny their descent from Sally Hemings--just the opposite, in fact. They were and are quite proud of it. See How the Law Decided if You Were Black or White: The Early 1800s for details and sources.
Frank, do you know anymore cases of former slaves who upon manumision became free white people, without "passing" or being dishonest about thier slave origin??
...my mothers marster was my father, and he never denied me to anybody. My mother was a slave but she was white....my mother's mother was Marry Jane Collins and she was white - maybe part indian".
When describing her origins she never mentions having any fraction of negro ancestry, which was probably very far removed.
What happened to these kinds of people?? I realize that there were many slaves who were technically legal white persons because of having overwhelming european ancestry. Is there any record of former slaves becoming free whites on a legal basis because of their blood quantum, and not because of "passing".
Following this line of reasoning blacks in America should see themselves as sub-human, criminals, lazy and shiftless.
Many black intellectuals and your average black person on the street complain with justification that society often sees them in a negative light. Many rail against this and demand that they not be seen this way. Maybe we should tell them to just live with it and stop complaining because they are what others see them as. Further, attempts at promoting positive images of blacks must cease because society sees blacks in a different light.
Cher comes to mind. She is not perceived as White she is perceived as half-Native American and half-White. I've even heard her talk about how "dark" she is and how growing up she yearned to be fair and blond and blue eyed like her full-White sister.
This is news to me. It may be the case that many whites and others see her as a white person who is half Amerindian others do not. She isn't generally seen as non-white.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, her dark skin has alot to do with her Armenian-American father's influence. Her last name is Sarkesian, and I believe what ever Amerindian ancestry she has comes from her mother who has dirty blonde hair.
I would also add that many celebrities have publicly claimed real or imagined Amerindian ancestry, but are not readily seen as non-white. Chuck Norris (half Navaho), Shania Twain (no Amerindian ancestry), and Johnny Depp have all claimed or implied (Shania Twain) that they have Amerindian ancestry. They are not generally seen as non-white people.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
