The Study of Racialism

So if a biracial person decided to have kids does there children become fullblood black africans?

Why do people think you can only mixed one time and thats the frist born fristgenation?

People seem to for get about when mulatto/biracial have children there kids are still mixedrace and not fullblood.

mymulatto - Can you clarify the issue you are raising? I am not following. Are you saying that if two biracial people have a children together that their children are mixed too? Or are you saying that if mixed people have children with Black people (also mixed but perhaps less so) that people assume their children are "full blooded?"

If 2 mulattos have a child, that child will be mulatto.

If a mulatto has a child with a black African, that child will still be mulatto.

If a mulatto has a child with a white European, that child will also be a mulatto.

That sounds like mulatto one-dropism to me. When does one "stop" or "start" being mulatto from a cultural or blood-quantum perspective?

"One-droppism" would be me denying a part of someone's heritage by emphasizing one side of a person's heritage (i.e. calling someone of white/mulatto parentage "black" despite that person's overwhelming European heritage). Those examples I showed in my post falls in line with the definition of what a mulatto is; A person of European and African heritage.

As for blood quantums, that's a silly game not worth playing. Of course if someone can find a way to measure the "whitness" or "blackness" in someone's blood, I'd love to hear it.

By your own definition your previous post is mulatto one-dropism then. Calling a person who has overwhelmingly African or European heritage "mulatto" is no different than calling someone "Black" who has overwhelmingly Asian heritage. Saying that someone with one White or Black parent and one mulatto parent "is a mulatto" is textbook one-droppism.

Mulatto.org does not share you belief that defining mulattos according to blood quantum rules is a "silly game not worth playing." The last time I visited the site, the fierce debate of who is or isn't a mulatto was fixated at percentages (25%) of both Black and White "blood," since that the only way to quantify "racial" ancestry other than a DNA test is by representing ancestry with fractions based on who bred with whom over generations.

Identity politics are serious business, and clearly numbers matter in trying to solidfy race-based identity groups. I don't see any difference in the logic presented here to define a mulatto and the logic used to define a Black person in the U.S.

Incorrect. By definition a person of European and African heritage is a mulatto. By definition hypodescent (one-dropism) is the practice of determining the lineage of a child of mixed race ancestry by assigning the child the race of his or her more socially subordinate parent.

Once again, where is the "one-dropism" in calling someone of European/African heritage a "mulatto"?



I fail to see how Mulatto.org's position on this topic is relevant to this discussion.



I'm sorry to hear that.

So according to you if someone has a great great great grandfather who was African or European then they are mulatto? That is one droppism. If the ancestry is far removed and plays no part in their phenotype nor their identity, then they are no longer mulatto.







They are not mulattos

I am not mulatto.

Re-read my original post. No where did I state that someone's "great great great grandfather" being African or European made someone a mulatto.

Socially here is the deal: its all about looks.

If you look 'White', or 'Asian', or 'Mexican', or 'Black' that is how you will be treated. Dark mulattos will probably always be considered 'Black, but mixed by heritage only'. Quads or 1/4 Black will probably be treated as socially white, but not 'real' white. 1/2 Mexican = Mexican, but nowadays 1/4 Mexican = white or white hispanic.

The 1-drop rule really only holds if you still have any Black features (not ancestry anymore), so its really more the Hypodescent Rule based on looks rather than the 1-drop rule. Anyone agree? And I live in the supposedly more racist Deep South.

I have known too many cases where a white looking person was said to be 'Black' but they were treated as White by Whites. Now, treated as an EQUAL WHITE? NO, but not treated as Asian, Blacks, Mexican, etc.

The only races we seem to care about in America is White, Black, Asian (Oriental, Indian), and Hispanic (Mexican). Everybody else has to find their own place.

I hate to use celebrities but anyhow.... this is what I have noticed in media, discussions, and how they are considered by people in the South in general:

Mariah first stated she is mixed is still considered to be 'mixed', ie. not a real Black person. Depends on whom you talk to.

Halle who has always stated she is AA first, so she is considered to be AA (but mixed on the DL).

Nicole Richie has always stated she is Black, never claimed being 'mixed' but her looks give her a 'white pass'. I would also say she is considered to be neutral - glossed over Black.

The Rock is only Black in an offhand comment way.

Vin Deiesel is mixed, but Black. Shemar Moore is Black, but mixed.

Looks and what the celebritiy has stated on the record really gives the best view.

Although many Whites and Blacks will adhere to 1-dropism, it really boils down to looks and what you say you are. If you look Black, you could be only 1/4 African/Black (Thandie Newton's daughter, Yannick Noah's son, etc) only and still be considered Black.

However, if you do not have any Black features (Soledad's oldest daughter, etc) you would be hard pressed to prove that you are Black and even then, people won't treat you as Black anyway.

On both sides of the color divide, you would always be explaining your existence and insistence on what they cannot see......

Hanzou's logic is woefully circular and one-droppist to the max. Consider his statement, which is:

If 2 mulattos have a child, that child will be mulatto.

If a mulatto has a child with a black African, that child will still be mulatto.

If a mulatto has a child with a white European, that child will also be a mulatto.


By definition hypodescent (one-dropism) is the practice of determining the lineage of a child of mixed race ancestry by assigning the child the race of his or her more socially subordinate parent.

Er, it doesn't get any clearer than that.

There is no end to this unbroken chain of mulattoism in descendants, so Salsassin is absolutely correct in his criticism of Hanzou's statement. Hanzou didn't have to discuss descendants beyond children because his logic dictates their heritage implicitly and using deductive reasoning: Their mulatto parent determines what race they are in every case. According to Hanzou, once you have a "mulatto" in your family tree you can't seem to declare any other racial identity. That is one droppism. Period. The only "racial" base Hanzou hasn't covered is Asian ancestry.

Mulatto.org's perspective is relevant to this discussion because it is an official forum for people who self-identify as mulattos. The threads in which the definition of "mulatto" were debated there are relevant because obviously there is not much agreement among mulattos on a strict definition. And your one-droppist definition certainly isn't the one that was decided upon there - a good thing for people who wish to choose their own personal identities.

I think this is generally true in the U.S. but not in other countries. In Haiti, for example, mulattos are a social class/ethnic group. There is mulatto one-droppism there in that as long as you have some money and discernable European ancestry you are considered mulatto.

Since Mexican Americans are an ethnic group they also tend to one-drop, at least in the Southwest. But it is more about how you were raised and whether you are white because you are Hispanic or white because you are Anglo (WASP/Northern European/non-Latin heritage). These are cultural differences more than "racial" differences. There are plenty of white Mexican Americans who do NOT see themselves as Whites. They would be highly offended if someone called them Whites, or Anglos.

I think the white Mexicans who do not want to be associated with Whites feel so because, as Maya suggested, they consider only English speakers of northern European descent as white. I suppose in their minds, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, southern Frenchmen, and Greeks should be regarded as Mediterraneans, and not true Whites. As Omar has said, Americans of northern European extraction are sometimes disparagingly known as "Gringos" in the Latin American world. This does appear to be a cultural thing, and not a racial one, since there are Latin Americans (and southern Europeans) who would not look out of place in northern Europe or amongst Americans of northern European descent. If a white-looking Mexican would take offense to the statement, "You are white," they may not take offense to the statement, "You have a European appearance."

What's clear is that you and Salsassin are trying to make an argument that simply doesn't exist. The hypodescent argument doesn't apply in this case because mulatto itself is a mixed-race designation, whereas black and white are monoracial designations.

Furthermore if I had replaced "mulatto" with "biracial", you and Salsa wouldn't be so worked up about this topic. Would I be "one-dropping" people if I called them "biracials" instead of "mulattos"? Nevermind the fact that mulatto and biracial pretty much means the same exact thing when it comes to European/African mixies.



Now you're simply putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I state or imply that individuals don't have a choice/right in their own personal identity.



Once again,

Nowhere did I state or imply that individuals don't have a choice/right in their own personal identity.

I think the impasse we appear to have reached here is largely due to definition. What Maya and Jaime are wondering, is when does the mulatto or biracial designation cease to apply. When one is 1/8 European and 7/8 African (or vice-versa)? When the lesser ancestry is no longer visible, as Melani23 has suggested? When one simply decides to no longer be designated as mulatto? Apparently, there is no answer, and it is subjective.

Both Black and White are also mixed-race designations. The arbitrarily drawn, binary color line in the U.S. pretty much ensures that many people on both sides are racially mixed. Therefore, racial identities based on hypodescent are neither "monoracial" or "mixed-race," but concretized designations of "what one is" based on partial ancestry and not appearance. Hanzou followed suit in defining mulattos as descended from one or two mulattos. If that is the case then most Blacks are mulattos and a significant number of Whites are too.



Speaking for myself, I will always defend the right of individuals to identify themselves over proscribing racial identities based on hypodescent of any kind. Given what we know about "race" scientifically and culturally, and what the goals of this forum are, I don't see why I should do otherwise. Replacing "biracial" with "mulatto" still enforces hypodescent and lack of choice in self-identity for descendants. Yes, you would be one-dropping people whose parents are biracial if you call them "biracial." Yes, you would be one-dropping the children of one biracial parent and a Black/White parent if you referred to them as "biracial." There are many words that describe an African/European mix - mulatto, biracial, White, and Black to name a few. To designate one over another and the "best" or "right" one to use in general seems silly to me given the historical quagmire of racial identification in the U.S.



Outside designation of racial categories removes personal choice. If you had changed "will be" or "still will be" to "can be considered" I would have had no problems with your definition.

I agree. This becomes clear if you go back and read the entire thread but substitute neutral words (such as "biracial" or "mixed") for each occurrence of the emotionally charged word "mulatto." Hanzou seems to be essentially saying that if you are mixed then you are mixed, whatever the proportions. Sagascend seems to be essentially saying that everyone has the right choose or reject whaetver self-label they with. I see no conflict between these positions.

By sheer definition, a person of 1/8 white European, and 7/8 black African heritage would still be a mulatto/biracial. However, in sociological terms that person would more likely identify as "black" than mulatto or biracial, which is completely his/her right, and also makes the most logical sense.

However, Maya and Jaime attempting to apply the hypodescent in this case is rather absurd.

Thank you Frank. Like I said, if I had used "biracial" or "mixedrace" instead of "mulatto", Sagascend and Salsassin wouldn't have an issue with anything I'm saying. They're trying to make an argument that simply doesn't exist.

Absolute rubbish. "Black" and "white" are monoracial ideologies in every sense, which is why mixed race individuals ended up forging their own unique labels/identities in the first place.