The Study of Racialism

Thanks Frank. That's interesting.

Besides the Almoravid Empire, that was short lived, I believe the large scale trans-saharan commerce and its persistency has lots to do with it, and also the establishing of Arab merchant in Northern Subsaharan Africa during the Middle Ages.

I remember that once we discussed this topic, and we even reach to the conclusion that some West Africans were mulattoes. And that it was possible to find some West Africans more "white" looking than some descendents in the Americas, and some mentioned the Fulani peoples as an example.

Regards,

Omar

I agree. Also, many Wolof-speaking Senegalese apparently had a lot of North African in them. For some reason, many of the slaves brought to Spanish Florida in the 1783-1821 period came from Senegal. Of those, many who were were freed were accepted into White Florida society, intermarried, and their descendants are White today.

Well, if they had a North African, Berber look (the "Moor's look") they wouldn't be discriminated by the Spaniards and won't be considered Black either. Besides, women had more opportinities to "cross" the discrimination barriers that men. A good looking Black woman could do it, giving was pretty by Spaniard standards of the time, of course.

Now,it is curious to see that perhaps the roots of Blues come precisely from the Muslim-African, hybrid culture that developed in the zone of contact between those areas in subsaharan Africa. There is an interesting article about the origin of Blues that say that.

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/200604/muslim.roots.u.s.blues.htm


Regards,

Omar

We know about African influences in the Blues, be they Muslim or not. Would you say there was any European influences other than instrumentation?

The article is interesting, but i already noticed one bias.

"Muslim and Arab culture have certainly been influences on other music around the world, including flamenco, which is rooted in seven centuries of Muslim rule in Spain, and Renaissance music."

What they don't say is that Flamenco used both elements of Indan and Arab music because it was started by the Indian decent Gitanos in a Moor controlled country. And if you consider that Louisiana and the South had a Spanish population, the influence for the blues could have come from Arab West Africa and from Spain itself.

Frank, did you like the article?

Omar

What do you mean by "cultural motives"? Are you referring to unconscious motives?

The source of my confusion, I think, is that social identity and racial ancestry are being conflated. I suspect when blacks look at forms that encourage them to check all (race) boxes that apply they check the one that most accurately reflect their identity. For example, I learned as a grown man that my maternal great great grandfather was full blooded Nanticoke, which would make me 1/8 Indian. (correction: that should be 1/16) I look nothing like an Indian mine you, and neither do many of my white students who acknowlege their Cherokee ancestry. If I were given a choice to identify my ancestry I would certainly check black, white, and native american (my maternal grandmother, I learned as adult, was half-white, though I assume she self-identified as "blackamerican" or Negro). However, if I were to interpret the 'check all that apply' direction as a question of my identity, I would check only "blackamerican". I don't see anything strange about either decision.

Perhaps the "cultural motive" is the way in which blackamericans interpret or process these routine questions. It's matter of identity not ancestry for most I would suspect. While I am sure most blacks can accept the fact of multiple identities, blackness is what resonates.

So the question becomes, for me at least, why does blackness (or mixedness) trump other possible identities? This is a question alluded to in Appiah's 'Cosmopolitanism'?

Regarding "political suicide" . . . My reference to the "political" is not limited to voting and elections. I was thinking more along the lines of cultural politics, in the sense that, unfortunately, many blackamericans define themselves by what they are not--'white'. "Black" is about as far as you can get from "White". The theologian Victor Anderson's notion of 'ontological blackness' comes to mind here because that is what is at the center of blackamerican self-definition. (Anderson is very critical of this notion, hence the title of his book, "Beyond Ontological Blackness")

To answer your question more directly, no, I'm not suggesting blackamericans fear losing their right to vote. They're afraid of losing their identity. And identity is politics.

2

Most African Americans (at least those that I have known in my experience) have no specific knowledge of any white ancestors, and so are not denying anybody. Theres no connection.

Its that simple.





Why? I'm pretty sure most people (of all ethnic groups) are unaware of what their genetic ancestry is.

...and anyway "genetic ancestry" (invisible markers that can only show up on a spreadsheet) is meaningless in a real social context.

People identify with their family, and the ancestors that are part of their recorded history.

I don't know for sure which of the many answers presented here
is the most accurate, but I do know that the question posed by
this thread is certainly thought provoking. Good thread.

[An off-topic message requesting moralizing and/or value judgment in violation of this thread's ground rules has been split off to Should Latin Americans adopt an endogamous color line? in the "Latin America" forum.]

Hmmmm. Who are these West Indians of African descent (and I exclude those of predominant mixed ancestry) who dont want to be black? West Indians (at least those born in the Caribbean) usually dont want to be called African American, for the reasons that you outline. They are usually proud to be black which is viewed as broader then just "AfricanAmerican". They just want their Caribbean heritage to be ALSO recognized. This is seen at the various carnivals with the ample display of flags and other ethnic symbols.

Its also noteworthy that Puerto Ricans in NYC measure LOWER using most socio-economic criteria than do non Hispanic blacks. I am confused about why some might think that they are better than blacks by avoiding any multi-ethnic classification including black.

The phrase makes no mention of BWI's not wanting to be seen as Black. The only group of whom the above says "don't want to be seen as Black" are the Puerto Ricans. That particular claim is made because, despite having about 50-percent SSA admixture, 90 percent of Puerto Ricans check off "White" on the census "race" question. The only thing that the above phrase says about BWI's is that those of "dual ancestry", "know that being classified as U.S. Black condemns them to the oppression, bigotry, lack of opportunity, and wretched earning potential inflicted upon African Americans by U.S. society."


Please explain exactly what is meant by the ambiguous usage of the word "black" in the last sentence above. I urge caribj to please read paragraph B.4.k of The Rules before writing an answer.


"Why" questions are notoriously hard to answer, but I can recommend some reading material if caribj is serious.

1. I stand corrected by your answer about "BWI"s as you like to call us. Point of correction though, the only BWIs these days are from the Cayman Islands, Turks& Caicos, British Virgin Islands, Anguilla and Montserrat. The rest of us are from independent nations and so are not British West Indians. I use "black" in the context that you use SSA. However many people who self identify as "black" might not as SSA, feeling that an SSA is some one from there, or at least some one with SSA culture. I know the challenge that you face is trying to reconcile the numerous definitions that people from different places bring.

2. My question about Puerto Ricans is not meant to be facetious. I have done extensive reading about this issue but yet remain confused as to why SOME Puerto Ricans have notions about blackness as you describe when their average SES, at least in NYC is LOWER than nonHispanic blacks, and has been so far many years.

3. I suspect (correct me if I am wrong) that 80% of people in PR do NOT consider themselves to be white, but are then confused about what the US census folks mean, so they may check "white" when they actually mean "light". Light as in "light skinned with a variety of ancestries", not "white" as in only European ancestry. US based Puerto Ricans, knowing more about how Americans think are more likley to opt for other, which they might interpret as "mixed". What do you think?

I have heard that "other" or "check as many boxes as you want to" is still a work in process and not every one understands what is meant. An example of ths (off topic) is that of IndoCaribbean people who dont know what to check. Some check "black" even though they arent of SSA origins, because even though they are of East Indian ancestry they arent of India, or think "Asian" means Chinese, etc. Some check Asian, because they are of Asian Indian ancestry. And some check "other", not knowing what else to check. Bottom line is few probably are able to describe themselves the way they would like using US racial criteria as outlined in the census. Maybe this is the issue in PRico.

Probably the most succinct historiographic survey of Puerto Rican attitudes towards the U.S. "race" notion is Clara E. Rodriguez, “Challenging Racial Hegemony: Puerto Ricans in the United States,” in Race, ed. Steven Gregory and Roger Sanjek (New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University, 1994), 131-45. The book is a collection of essays on recent studies of racialism in different groups, and Clara Rodriguez's chapter addresses Puerto Ricans in particular.

In short, there seem to be different reasons for Puerto Rican rejection of the "black" census label, depending on age and educational level.

Older Puerto Ricans are probably sincere. They tend to be extremely colorist and vehemently deny that there is any "black blood" in their own families (although they are not sure about their neighbors'). My 94-year-old mother, for example, insists that her ancestors were all "racially pure" Spaniards whose families were never tainted by the slightest trace of "Moorish blood." She checks off "white" because she honestly believes that she is "white" in the "limpieza de sangre" sense common in the early 20th century. When asked about their obvious African phenotype features, older Puerto Ricans (like older Cubans and Dominicans) rationalize that such features are due to their "Indian blood." (Yes, even while simultaneously insisting that they are pure White; Puerto Ricans compartmentalize as nimbly as anyone else.)

Educated Puerto Ricans claim to check off whatever seems to be in their best interest. They (correctly) point out that it is economically harmful to be labeled "black" in the United States.

Puerto Ricans of the lower socioeconomic class express virulent contempt for African Americans. They claim to reject the "black" category because they do not want to be confused with violent criminals, men who abandon their families, and women who fail to raise their children.

Virtually none, as far as can be determined, "are confused about what the US census folks mean," as you suggest. They know very well what "black" means. It is the label of a group that they want no part of, either because: they deny non-White ancestry, because they think anyone would be foolish to seek oppression, or because they despise black crime and immorality.

Regarding the "check more than one box" issue, I recommend Nicholas A. Jones and Amy Symens Smith, The Two or More Races Population: 2000, (Washington: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). Few Americans check off more than one box. Apparently, Blacks seem to think that doing so will dilute their political power, Whites are unaware of their SSA ancestry, and Hispanics avoid "black" for the reasons given but many check "white" and "indian."

I do not believe that the idea that people are confused or that they do not grasp the significance of the U.S. color line is a tenable hypothesis.

Frank said:



Ah, now the question should be: How do we explain those U.S. Anglos and Creoles who go out of their way to identify as "black" when they could very easily identify as "white" (Think Gregory Howard Williams, Judy Scales Trent, Adrian Piper, etc.)? Are they crazy in contrast to sane Latinos?

I have some ideas, but I would like to hear others. Why was Susie Guillory Phipps denounced by "black" and and some "white liberal" intellectuals for rejecting a black label or being "sick" at the thought of being labeled "black" when the same attitude in a Latino or Arab-American would pass without comment?

Very simple. Because those same Latinos were never a part of the Afro-American or "Black" experience, nor were their families. There is no point of reference to dentify with. GHHoward was raised in that community. Others may have been so as well, or found out that recent family was opressed under that label and identify with that struggle. Something Latinos just don't have as a historical experience.

Assuming of course that most people subscribe to the notion that being Black is exclusively rooted in a Black ethnic experience based in the U.S. and not based on notions of race.

My own take on the "Hispanic Escape Hatch" is it is regional. Puerto Ricans and Dominicans in the Northeast U.S. are not seen as racially black by most people, unless they are extremely African-looking. This charade is maintained by both blacks and whites who embrace one droppism, excuse PRs and Dominicans from being black, then come up with all sorts of twisted justifications for this exclusion. I've seen it many times.

Arabs don't really factor in this situation because historically, the majority of Arabs in this country are from the Levant. By and large they do not have any visible African ancestry.

Outside of the U.S. areas where they predominate, Latinos who look "black" (read: look like they have some African ancestry at least) will be seen as such, even by other Hispanic Americans of non-Caribbean ancestry. I see elements of this in Northern Virgina, D.C. and Maryland. Also, one or two Caribbean Latinos I know from New York who've been to the west coast have told me that they were seen by many Chicanos and Mexicans out there as simply black people.

I knew a Dominican woman in Houston...she said that Mexicans talk crap about black people all the time and they think they can't understand...once she had to get "loud" with them...she said they looked confused and scared and apologized and said they were talking about American blacks only.

That is very interesting, expecially since it is corroborated by:


I guess that I have led a sheltered life. For some reason, I thought that the Caribbean Hispanic dispensation from being seen as Black was natiowide.

Naw, there are many Dominicans that identify as Black.