The Study of Racialism

[This is a sub-thread that was originally split off from the thread Who Is White?: Latinos, Asians, and the New Black/Nonblack Divide in the "Books of Interest" forum. -- FWS]



First off all let me describe myself so that my comments can be placed in context. I am a West Indian of African descent with an MBA from an Ivy League school, work in Corporate America and come from an upper middle class background in the Caribbean (my father is a doctor). As is the case with most black immigrants of my background, at least those who live in NYC, my socialization is mainly with other black immigrants and with (to a lesser degree) with African Americans of similar background, and only minimally with whites.

Intermarriage between whites and Caribbean immigrants in the USA, while higher than that of African Americans and whites, is lower than is the case with other immigrant groups, or even when compared with Caribbean immigrants to the UK. In fact I have observed that when we do marry Americans its usually black Americans. I cannot opine about what happens outside of NYC.

Many whites like to "imagine" that they are more favorably disposed to foreign blacks as a way of justifying their opinions of African Americans without being seen as politically incorrect. This reflects their feeling of guilt about American racism and the fact that (thank God) they dont have to feel this way toward foreign blacks. [I use "imagine" because their ACTUAL behavior gives lie to this imagined behavior.]

This might also reflect the fact that we, raised in majority black countries, are less sensitive about racism and tend only to "see" it when its obvious. We also lack a historical context in assigning blame when it comes to racism within the USA, and Britain has long gone so to dwell on colonial racism seems, to us, to be somewhat silly. So whites think that we seem easier to deal with. However when it comes to black immigrants vs. non black immigrants how well do black immigrants fare I wonder?


Many whites like to compare people like myself with the ghettoized African American as proof that we are "better". Isnt it silly to compare some one who has had all the opportunities available with another whose not too distant ancestors were crushed by formal (or informal) Jim Crow and who now exists in the death traps of the US ghetto? Why not the black American kid of a doctor with the black West Indian kid of a doctor? Are the outcomes different once we migrate to the USA? Some how I dont think so.

Surely no one will argue that poor Caribbean immigrants, living in Brooklyn and caught up in many of the evils that describe ghetto life (except maybe welfare), are about to be "honorary" white. I very much doubt that white cops or teachers dealing with this population have a kind word to describe them. Certainly the incidences of policy brutality against people like Louima and many other Caribbean immigrants (incidence which you probably havent heard of as Al Sharption wasnt involved) indicate that we face many of the same issues as do black Americans. A cop in the dark of night will not ask whether a black was born in the US or Jamaica or Nigeria before shooting us.


Whereas life for the upper middle class Caribbean immigrants is a whole lot easier than it is for poor black immigrants (the same applies within black American communities) I very much doubt that we are more accepted or have an easier time of it than do upper middle class African Americans with similar backgrounds. The notion that Caribbean and African immigrants are preferred, in my opinion at least, is largely cocktail chatter and at the end of the day black is black. How we are treated is a function of our socio-economic status and level of education attained. Also of our ideology about racism (i.e. those intent in finding racism under every stone will indeed "find' it).

Now Caribbean and African immigrants do enjoy higher incomes, etc. compared with AfricanAmericans. However when one adjusts for the selectivity of this immigration (African immigrants from Ghana and Nigeria arrive with far higher college attainment than most Americans), are we really doing that well? A comparison with Asian immigrants indicates that we arent. Why is this? While the success of various ethnic groups reflects a number of factors not all connected with race, I think that black skin carries certain connotations in the USA. And this is speaking as some one who has experienced this.

Pardon my negritude...but I do believe dat be known in da common Afro-American vernacular as da "black tax". It real all day everyday...if you want to believe in it or not it definately believes in you.

Those of us from the USA, arrived directly from Africa as slaves, those of us from the USA who are kids of post slavery black immigration, and those of us black immigrants from the Caribbean (English, French, Spanish and Dutch), Latin America and direct from the Motherland all pay this tax. The notion that somehow black immigrants and our kids escape this black tax is cocktail chatter, as I said, and designed to allow some white folks to feel less guilty about their racist attitudes to AfricanAmericans in front of your faces (and to the rest of us behind our backs, or in front when we anger them). Its about divide and rule and unfortunately too mnay of us fall into that trap.

Now this is not to say that there isnt some validity to the argument that black immigrants outperform African Americans. Census data does support this notion. But this is due to the natrual selectivity of migration (skewed to the most ambitious and risk oriented, and sometimes better skilled/educated). and to the fact that Jim Crow was NOT around to destroy our psyche as it did to too many African Americans whose descendants still remain trapped in the ghetto. When I read many accounts by AfricanAmericans and AfroLatinos I do realize that we, growing up in countries where blacks occupy EVERY slot in society from President/Prime Minister, CEOs of large corporations on down, and where we dominate the media imagery we do have a psychic confidence that other blacks growing up in white dominanat lands may lack. That is not the fault of these other blacks, and but for where the ship dropped us off we would have the same problems.

Dragon Horse we are on the same page. My response was to fwsweets who seems to believe (I dont know how) that this black tax mightnt apply to West Indians and that we are about to be awarded "honorary white status". I had to reply because I am really tired of hearing this. Its usually an attempt by whites to avoid discussions about the continued impact of racism ("you see these West Indians dont have problems, its the blacks who do", black meaning black American) than to confront this tax which most of us pay regardless as to our origins.

Sometimes I also detect that other minorities (especially AfricanAmericans and Puerto Ricans) also attribute some notion that West Indians are preferred by whites based on their perception of our greater success (maybe this is where fwsweets is coming from). The reality is that we are NOT exempt from this black tax. Its that disproportionately large numbers of us are able to deal with it in a manner that doesnt prevent our success for reasons that I outlined. But many of us do fall into that "ghetto trap" as well.

Cocktail chatter, but too many Caribbean people who have moved to affluent mainly white suburbs know better, when their white neighbors look at them in horror, and if bold enough, might even discretely inquire if "more of your friends are coming?" That being a true story.

I laughed reading your sarcasm by the way. More folks of all varieties need to understand this. There is some speculation that Sean Bells fiance is of at least part caribbean stock. If true it shows we all pay that black tax, and that our socio-economic status, not where the boat dropped us off, will determine how much. Clearly poorer blacks pay more, whetrher they be AfricanAmerican, AfroCarib, AfroLatino or continental African.

No. Most slaves from Africa were "seasoned" in the West Indies before being brought to British North America. (I am assuming that Caribj does not mean that he personally came from Africa as a slave.)


Caribj himself wrote: "Intermarriage between whites and Caribbean immigrants in the USA, while higher than that of African Americans and whites, is lower than is the case with other immigrant groups, or even when compared with Caribbean immigrants to the UK." The statement is correct. Intermarriage between Whites and British West Indian immigrants in the USA, is in fact higher than that between Whites and African Americans, and it is rising steadily. That is the only relevant objective fact.

Whether Caribj likes that objective measurable fact or not is irrelevant. Whether the exogamy difference is because West Indians are more tolerant of Whites than A-As are, whether it is because Whites are more tolerant of West Indians than they are of A-As, or whether it is because the moon is in the house of Pisces is irrelevant. Whether Caribj thinks that this objective measurable fact is fair, just, sinful, or whatever is irrelevant. Finally, whether this objective measurable fact matches or contradicts Caribj's claimed personal experiences is irrelevant.

Objective measurable facts do not care. They simply exist, like it or not.

Is Caribj saying that he believes that this trend will turn around and BWI exogamy will fall back to the 4% level of A-As? Is he saying that my prediction that it will continue to rise, just like the gradual acceptance via exogamy of every other once-non-White immigrant group, including my own (Puerto Rican), is in error? He may be right. I may be wrong. We will just have to wait and see. For now, however, the facts speak for themselves.

I try not to get mad about it and rationalize it, saying "life ain't fair" and other people live worse, but the truth is sometimes it gets to me, because this is the only country I have, but often I feel like a foreigner in my own country or like it really is not my country.

For a Carribean person "from foreign" at least they can take confort in knowing that if someone discriminates agians them they are foreign and probably expect it to some extent...I doubt they would feel that way if born here.

I have lived abroad, it is not always fun being foreign but sometimes it is liberating not to be "the nigger" many nations have their own, who are not black. Everyone country has one group (foreign or domestic) to blame everything on, in this country it is black folks unfortunately.

A lot has changed, but not fast enough for me...I shouldn't have to wait generations to be equal in my country where my family has faught and died for.

FW:

I tihnk you are right, but the rate of change will be so slow...and there will continue to be resistance to it. This country still has a aweful lot of hate, especially outside the major urban areas. It is changing but ...like I said, not as fast as I would like to see and I often feel that I don't want to raise children in this country to be infected with the rationalism and the negativity toward blacks in general that is prevelant in all communities (including the black community) and especially in the mainstream media. I very much fear my kids growing up to be "niggers" just as many people expect and want despite my best efforts.

I would rather them grow up in someplace where they would really standout then to be in "their country" where they are at the bottom until they have to "prove" otherwise.

Slower than you imagine. Based upon the current rate of change in the exogamy rate, I project that African-Americans will be as tolerated as, say, Japanese Americans in about six centuries. You and I and our g-g-g-g-g-grandchildren will all be long dead. But, what the hell, we can hope for the best. (On the other hand, U.S. "race" relations have crashed to nil exogamy every hundred years or so for the past four centuries. So like I said, Caribj may be right and I may be wrong.)


I have several friends who live in other countries for precisely that reason. One of the advantages of being well-traveled is that we can live and work almost anywhere, and still come back to the "big PX" once a year on home leave. Your only problem will be when your kids are around 7-10 years old and you will want them to learn American English. At that time you might decide to return. We did.

Yes, I agree with you gentlemen; the earth is spacious.

And just as millions once did and still do come here, millions can also
just as easily (or just as difficultly) pack up and go elsewhere. The earth
is spacious and belongs to us all. Of course moving isn't always easy.
Learning new languages and cultural ins and outs can be a pain. Yet,
we as human beings are sometimes driven to make the sacrifice. It's
the human way. And I think the moving & mixing does humanity good.


Leo Y. "Ireland" Abdulmalik

[quote="Dragon Horsemy country.

For a Carribean person "from foreign" at least they can take confort in knowing that if someone discriminates agians them they are foreign and probably expect it to some extent...I doubt they would feel that way if born here.

.[/quote]

Three points.


First is that foreign blacks from majority nonwhite countries do have the assurance that they have their own country. Many African Americans arent sure whether the USA is trheir own country.

Second is that most Caribbean immigrants come to make money, and so really dont care what Americans, black or white, think of them unless it interferes with their goals. So if the USA doesnt accept blacks, tough, once we can make money and then go home as soon as possible. Of course few of us do this in practise. But at least its easier for us to view white racism as warped attitudes by silly people than it would be for an AfricanAmerican who has far higher expectations due to being a native of the USA. And then again if it all becomes too difficult we can remove ourselves from it by going home, not an option available to American blacks who are already "home".

Third is that I have been told by some African Americans that they are treated better in Europe, where their status is that of an American (without the stigma of being an Ugly Americans as they suspect that you dont like George Bush anymore than they do), and an affluent educated one at that, than in the USA. Is this your experience. I have been told that local European blacks are less respected in Europe than you might be.

You are correct. I was just using the short hand way of differentiating those African Americans whose ancestors were slaves in teh USA from those descended from earlier waves of FREE black immigrants,

fwsweets I saw some where that outmarriage rates among SECOND generation West Indians in the USA are a scant 10%. Note that to a white American these people cannot be differentiated from African Americans given their American accent and mannerisms. The moderately higher intermarriage with whites amongst this population relative to native blacks has more to do with the attitudes that these people and their parents towards whites, than some notion that they are in actuallity more accepted.

Also remember that in the English Caribbean the one drop rule doesnt apply and those who maybe classified as "black" within a US context may not actually see themselves as such, and in fact may be highly resentful of such classifications. Case in point, a West Indian woman like Vanessa Williams would be very confused as to why she would be called black. I havent seen any study which analyzes the differences that West Indians who view themselves as mixed vs those who consider themselves to be black in terms of their intermarriage rates with whites but from what I know of the culture I suspect that a high % of those marriages are amongst the mixed group.

I am saying that based on the experiences of the descendants of earlier waves of Caribbean migration (those who descended from the 1900-1929 wave) we are ultimately absorbed within the African American population. As to where we fit depends on our socio-economic status because as you know the African American community is quite diverse and increasingly polarised along class lines.

While I expect going forwards, that marriages between whites and the children of Caribbean immigrants will remain slightly higher than is the case between native American blacks and whites (because there is less opposition to such marriages within the West Indian community) it will remain low, relative to that seen among other nonblack minority groups, because of the continued high levels of segregation between blacks (especially those who do not see themselves as mixed) and whites.

Of course black/white marriages are increasing and I will expect to see continued increases especially between black female professionals and white men (regardless as to the ethnic backgrounds of these black women) because they out perform black men educationally and experience difficulties in finding suitable black male partners as a result. I very much doubt however that black West Indians will merge into the white community at rates considerably higher than that of American blacks, once we adjust for socio-economic status.


I wonder though what is the experience of darker Puerto Ricans who in this country are classified as black. Have they become honorary whites over time? While it might be true that light skinned Puerto Ricans (the ones who can be "mistaken" for being Mediterranean origin or Jewish, or some "exotic" "South American" background) might become absorbed within the white community, if they so chose, over time, do we see this among those Puerto Ricans who are mistaken for being Trinidadian, Dominican, Haitian or Jamaican (based of course on stereotypes as to what these people look like)?

It is my opinion that the USA is about black vs nonblack. As dragon horse said we (immigrant and native blacks) pay a black tax and it will come looking for us if we dont think so.

Yes. I am pretty sure that those numbers are in Mary Waters's book, Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities (New York: Harvard University, 1999), a book which I strongly recommend by the way. Second-generation BWI's do indeed currently assimilate as AA's.


Like I said, lets us check back in a couple of centuries and we shall see who was right.


I would say definitely yes, by two measures. First, the overall exogamy of Puerto Ricans is currently about 40 percent, about the same as for Irish-Americans. Second, according to the census, 90 percent of Puerto Ricans check off "White." True, those numbers are overall and your question was about the African-looking ones, but there are no data by phenotype since it is so subjective. The average PR Afro-Euro admixure is 50-50 (actually 40-40-20, including the Amerind component), so you can estimate them by cutting those numbers in half. Still, this means that exogamy among Black-looking Puerto Ricans would still be around 22 percent, and about half of the Black-looking Puerto Ricans check off "White." This is still a far cry from the A-A situation. But it is not all that far from first-generation BWIs.


I agree completely. The question, however, was about what the future holds in store. And there we are both guessing.

fwsweets check out an article by Christie Batson and Daniel I Lichter in the Journal of Marriage and Family August 2006.

They state that intermarriage rates between black immigrants (both African AND West Indian) and whites are LOWER than is the case of native blacks and native whites. The higher rates of intermarriage cited in other sources seems to be a SECOND generation thing, not the immigrant (and obviously differentiated from AfricanAmerican in the eyes of whites) generation.

They further state that these intermarriage rates with whites are FAR exceeded by intRA marriage with African Americans. Factually the Americans most accepting of black immigrants (notwithstanding the oft meant frictions) are BLACK Americans, and that the social segregation that limits intermarriage between blacks and whites might apply even moreso among black immigrants who bring their own cultural identity, and therefore less interested in socially integrating with whites outside of their work environments.

Do you have a link? Or a PDF that you can email? I would like to post it here, since it sounds very interesting.

I read that book and noted her assertions of the "superior" West Indian immigrant and her dire predictions of much of the second generation based on class. West Indian immigrants and our kids have to work through the mine field of American race relations and to have any prediction that we will merge into the white community at rates differentiated with the larger black communities doesnt seem borne out in fact when we see the trajectory of so many second generation kids.

In fact I know of several middle class parents who felt that had they left their sons in the caribbean until they were older that some of the problems that they face with these kids would not have occurred. Indeed Mary alludes to this. The police banging on the doors of a middle class household because of potential criminal behavior of their son is unheard of in the caribbean and would indeed be a huge scandal. Here its no shock, but indeed the fear of many of these parents.

I wasnt aware that strong academic performance or proficiency in mathematics or sciences marked one off as not being "black" until I came here. In fact ironically it was often the rich white kids in the Caribbean who were seen as being academically weaker, because they felt that their priviledged status meant that they dont have to do well in school. It was quite "black" to perform well in school and in fact many poorer black parents beat the skin off their kids if they didnt.

I did a yahoo search and saw a post but it was part of a blog so I dont know the legality of posting that link. I will search further.

1. Does this exogamy refer to PR/white marriages or mightnt it not include marriages to other Latins. For instance I am aware (because I live in teh Bronx) that there are many Puerto Rican/Dominican marriages.

2. The average Puerto Rican "black" living in the USA is a far cry from your typical West Indian black. We will have to find the blackest Puerto Ricans and such data I doubt is available. The lighter a black is the more acceptable they are to whites, all things being equal.

3. Black West Indians (not mixed ones) carry a much stronger "black" identity than do many socalled blacks from Latin America, especially when we migrate to majority white countries. I suspect that there is less motivation to marry whites within the climate of segregation and distrust as currently existing in the USA. My sister married a white man (they are now divorced) and she had some level of anxiety as to how accepted he would be in addition to perceptions of cultural difference, and of course fears as to how he would treat her. Of course there is some "I told you so" going on since the divorce. My brother, married to an African American, has incurred some anxieties based on stereotypes (some of it being class based) from family but much less anxiety. Given that she is Southern the perception is that she culturally "fits".

It reflects marriages between those who reported themselves as Hispanic (PR) (any race) on the census and those who reported themselves non-Hispanic (White). Go to IPUMS. If you are comfortable constructing database queries using a GUI (no SQL, thank God!), downloading data records, and then tabulating them into Excel, there are complete instructions on how to extract damned near anything that you can imagine from the census.


That is true. The problem is that nobody collects phenotype data anymore. So we have guess appearance from genetic admixture (not too good, but it is the best that we can do). You are implying that Puerto Ricans are becoming assimilated because they do not look as African, on average. That is true, but U.S. perception is shifting. Who has "looked white" to USAmericans has changed steadily over the centuries. Ben Franklin predicted that German-Americans would never assimilate because they could never pass as White. People are seen as "white" today (Jews, for instance) who were definitely seen as non-White a century ago. If Puerto Ricans can "look white," what is to stop BWIs from "looking white" other than a matter of degree and timing. U.S. perception a century from now might well resemble Haiti's "somatic norm image" today (term coined by Harry Hoetink).


First, you are looking at today and I am trying to prophesy about the future, perhaps a century or more from now. I see trends among BWIs today similar to what happened to German-Americans in the 1700s, Irish in the 1800s, Jews in the 1900s, and Puerto Ricans within the past generation. Second, you keep citing personal experiences, but this varies from person to person. My daughter-in-law is Trini (rather dark) and her experiences and those of my son are the opposite of yours. Her folks (in their 60s) are first-generation and do not see themselves as A-A. She, on the other hand, very definitely does self-identity as A-A. And yet, although they are both active in the Urban League, they are both comfortable hanging out with non-Blacks as well. Different folks different strokes. All I am saying is that personal experiences are of limited value in predicting demographic trends.

You may be concerned that the trend is not a "good thing" since it would destroy "black solidarity" and result in lighter-skinned Americans with African ancestry gradually becoming more accepted while darker ones become ever more ostracized and excluded. I am just looking at the trend, not its consequences.

1. I dont come from a culture that expects solidarity between peoples of mixed ancestries and those of predominant African ancestry. In fcat the tensions between these two groups have possibly been as great as any inter ethnic tensions in the Caribbean. I therefore have no reason to be disappointed if it doesnt occur.

2. Why would whites accept an African American with an African appearance whose grandfather came from the English speaking Caribbean (we generally dont like the term BWI because its inaccurate as we are no longer British and it has a colonial implication) and not an African American derived from American slavery. After all they will have similar accents, dress and mannerisms, and in fact few of these third generation folks even announce their Caribbean heritage unless coaxed.

I will accept that blacks growing up in mainly white suburban environments and are upper middle class will be more accepted than other blacks. I will also accept that reduced segregation of blacks at this level will result in more intermarraiges with whites. Surely you dont believe that an African American MBA living in a wealthy suburb is less accepted than a West Indian taxi driver or constrcution worker living in Brooklyn who speaks with a strong creole (English creole that is) inflected accent driving around with a pounding soca or reggae music booming from their car.

3. The data shows very little intermarriage between West Indians of the first generation, in fact some dats show its LESS than among African Americans. Even among second generation West Indians a 10% outmarriage rate with whites (I maybe wrong but I believe that outmarriage rates to African Americans maybe as high as 40%) doesnt give any indicatuion of atrend towards West Indians merging with whites and being separated from African Americans.

4. Its notable that the second generation TRini is very involved with African American issues in fact moreso than most African Americans in her involvement with the Urban League. This shows that despite her friendship with whites her identity remains firmly as an African American with a Caribbean heritage. She isnt about to disappear into the white world. Now your garnd child might but he most assuredkly will never be considered black within a West Indian environment. He will be white, or near white. In fact were he to assume a "black" identity and then visist the English Caribbean that would be considered odd.

5. Trust me most West Indians of the 1st and 2nd generation living in the NYC dont mix with whites any more than do African Americans. I dont need data to support that. I just need to observe the people with whom I mix and I am a member of many different Caribbean groups. I also see few whites at the Brooklyn Carnival hanging out with their West Indians friends as I would see in London or Toronto. Given that over one million people attend this event that says something.

One thing that you need to know is that data about West Indians in NYC arent always accurate because they rely on small sampling (which might reflect the bias of the sampler), or on census data based on the person self identifying as a West Indian. Many dont because they arent asked. In fact I have had to make census takers write down that I am West Indian because I understand the importance of data. Few do this I am sure. There is no ethnic breakout for blacks as there is for Asians and Hispanics.

So one can get fairly reliable data on Puerto Ricans. One has to wonder whether there is bias in data for West Indians. For instance is it the more educated ones who insist upon being ID'd for census purposes as West Indians? Who knows. Prsonally any one purporting to know anything about second generation West Indians will have a hard tiome convincing me taht there might not be some bias in their data. In fact Mary in the book that you quoted did suggest that it was the more upper middle class assimilated kids who most aggressively identified as West Indian. So it seems clear that data on this group will not include the majority who are lower middle class or working class.