The Study of Racialism

This point is worth a separate thread, if anyone is interested in pursuing it. What I am talking about is the extreme hostility expressed by self-labeled Blacks when someone rejects that ethnicity because Blacks suffer discrimination and oppression from White U.S. society.

We have had cases recently where Black members take the position that everyone has the right to self-identify as they wish, no questions asked. And then when others reject a Black identity because of family tradition (Hispanics, usually) the Black members live up to their freedom-of-choice position and tolerate the person's rejection of a Black identity with minor discomfort. But when someone (DevilChild) rejects a Black self-identity because African Americans suffer oppression at the hands of White society (a perfectly sensible reason, IMHO), the very people who, moments before, advocated free choice sometimes become enraged.

Why? Why do some African Americans stand by their principles when a person rejects Blackness for reasons unrelated to U.S. racism but then become enraged hypocrites when a person rejects Blackness because to be Black in America jeopardizes your livelihood?

It is a puzzling and, to be honest, shocking phenomenon that people's principles can be so fragile. If no one wants to discuss it, I shall drop the subject. But I really would like to be educated about this.

I think I can explain it.

Most Americans, as you have mentioned, believe that "latins" constitute a third race. I used to think similarly, and I explained away Puerto Ricans who looked just like me as being freak dopplegangers, but not genetically "similar". Now, I bet most Americans do the same. So, this means that latins are under no obligation to admit that they are part black, unless of course they really are negros.

When A black person hears them admit that they are part black, they may be so overjoyed that somone is admiting it ( a comon theme among blacks ), that they overlook the fact that this person is climbing the race ladder. On the otherhand, we devilspawn from the United States have no way out. Once it is revealed that we are actually Americans ( my choice by the way ) then the interogator immediately understands that the only way we could come to look the way we do, is if we are black and white.

Thus, we have no protection within a large body of "others", say Arabs or Latinos. Because of this, blacks are not overjoyed when we admit that we are part black. They are infuriated that we dont reject our white side in the first place. You will often hear them say "everyone will know what you are". They sure as hell dont say that to latinos.

They would get you too Frank, if they thought they could. Luckily, you guys have a massive body of mestizos and the ignorance of the American public to your benefit. Im glad for you, because at least you're spared.

DvC

No, I do not think that that's it. I may have confused things by mentioning Hispanics. The cases that I have seen apply to Anglo-Americans as well.

Creoles and Maroons can reject Blackness because of their traditions without arousing rage (like Heather Locklear, say). First-generation biracials can do the same if they explain that they were raised as White (like Earth Kitt's daughter). Even the children of people who passed through the color line to become White (as you apparently advocate) can reject Blackness as long as they explain that they did not know about their ancestry until adulthood (like Carol Channing, for instance).

All of these essentially say, "I reject Blackness without conscious choice... it is how I was raised," and nobody flies into a rage. But if anyone says, "I reject Blackness because being Black jeopardizes my livelihood and that of my spouse and children," then some African Americans go nuts.

I am not talking about the Latino dispensation (as AD puts it). I am talking about special blame placed on rationality.

Frank in Quotes, responses in type.

Frank, I respectfully disagree with you. I must not be aware of something so please dont take this as arrogance when it is probably ignorance, but I really do think my explanation explains this phenomenon, allow me to attempt this.

Maroons and Creoles are not well known or understood groups. For instance, when I was younger I was not aware that Creoles were more than very slightly black. They are considered, in my part of california, a bizaar french hold over, thus they are equated with the latin third race. That is why they are a special exception. Same for maroons I think. In any case the "I was raised X" argument only works on non african americans or mainstream mulattos.



No they cannot if they look darker or more negro than a southern European. Its true we sometimes get to do this ( for my history ask me later ) but its never safe and most of the whites I have ever met would at least roll their eyes.



This is an excelent examination of the dynamic. But I don't think it applies to your average mulatto at all.



This is explained by my socio political theory. Blacks beleive that racial unity is the key to their communal upliftment. Anyone who rejects membership in the black community is turning their back on this struggle, and is considered a traitor.



Yes, as I said above.

DvC

I think in the first instance, it's not so much a "rejection" as an indifference or disconnection.

The second is definitely a conscious rejection. Any form of rejection will have emotional significance for any human being. When you're talking about a group of people, many of whom have to consciously fight against a lie of inferiority, (in others and themselves), it's going to be even more intense.

[Attempted change of subject, subsequently ignored by all posters, deleted to clean up the thread. -- FWS]

@ F sweet


The reality is, creole is just a sub sect (group) of the black American race, and no longer carries a special identity that will free them from the one drop blood rule like Latino does. Once upon a time creole had a separate identity from black Americans, and this separate identity brought them social status and privileges that the average black America who was in slavery did not have. But forget about slavery, the fact was that creole was once on the level of Latino identity meaning it was treated as an ethnic group and culture. It was destroyed by the one drop blood rule. Most of the younger generation of creoles can't even speak creole french. When blacks see creoles blacks with the same skin complexions or having visible black ancestry they consider them black. that's all I am saying nothing more.

Because devil child (if he is TMK) doesnt merely reject blacks. He says the harshest things about us. Now if a Puerto Rican of part black ancestry rejected being black because of the reasons that devil child offered he would get the same treatment. The reasons offered usually are that they encompass a range of ethbnicnities and that they wish to give credit to all. I do not have a problem with that.

Now Dereck Jeter isnt attacked. Neither is Jennifer Beales, Vin Diesel, and Paula Abdul only rarely. Tiger gets it because he accepted endorsements for being the "first black", and only when well established we began to hear that he isnt black.

The question is why should any group have special status becausde they are part ofa group.

And why shouldnt they? Why should a group which has had to fight against the worst racism not become enraged when some one perceived by whites to be black then peddles the same arguments that whites have used to justify racism. If any group used that argument they would get it.

I can respect the biracial who says that claiming a black identity to the exclusion of others is an insult to one parent. Or the multigenerational person of mixed ancestry who uses the same idea.

Sorry. I cannot excuse some one who doesnt want to be black because they endorse the notion of black inferiority rather than fighting aginst such erroneous perceptions. Not in 2007 when we all know that to peddle the concept of an inferior race is WRONG.

Now I thought that in 2007 one should get ahead through education, hard work and positive values. Are we still of the belief that possessing a light skin and maybe caucasoid features should be enough to guarantee upward mobility?

@ Caribj

"oh" it all works in combinations they all work together.

Yawn, And Black supremasists don't?

This is the old Misery loves company, in a nutshell.

But that is simply a lie! No one here, certainly not Zack, has suggested that they reject a Black self-identity because Blacks are inferior in some way. No one. What they said, and what I wrote, and what you accurately quoted was, "I reject Blackness because being Black jeopardizes my livelihood and that of my spouse and children."

It appears to me that you are either (1) so wrapped up in a sense of collective victimization that you falsely read a claim that Blacks suffer from discrimination as saying that Blacks deserve discrimination. Or (2) you are willfully ignoring what others post in order to whine about your collective suffering. Either way, you are contributing nothing to the topic at hand other than exemplifying its irrationality.


Bullshit. No one has endorsed black inferiority and you know it. What you cannot excuse is some one not wanting be Black because, in their eyes, in America you would have to be a fool to voluntarily be Black.

The question at hand is, "Why does this enrage you?" The desire to avoid persecution seems perfectly rational to me. Why are you unable (willfully or otherwise) to see a difference between wanting to avoid persecution and wanting to persecute? Your blindness seems perfectly irrational to me.

I can't say that I've encountered any "black" supremists on the web which would have to do with the type of sites I usually visit. This is the only site dealing with "racial" issues that I look at and post on. I assume though, that "black" supremists might take a very similar approach with a few cultural differences given that it's all just six of one and half a dozen of the other.

tsk, tsk Frank. profanity? Et tu brutus?


I will give you some of your own advice.

e. Try to speak towards the readers, not towards the person whose post you are replying to. Third-person address is traditional in scholarly venues. Think of the group as an academic publication for general readers, and the postings as letters to the editor. In other words, each post speaks to the readership as a whole, even if written in response to another’s post (who is referred to in the third person). To get a feeling for how this works, just look at the letters to the editors of any professional journal. This is the style you should strive towards for on-topic posts. It is more formal, and so it tends to keep disputes from becoming personal. This does not mean that you will inevitably be put on probation if you use the second person singular. It certainly does not mean that you can freely insult someone if you avoid second person singular. It simply means that you are less likely to accidentally offend someone if you speak to the readers rather than directly to another member. Again, this is just advice; the rule is to not antagonize others. (And it keeps you from geting as emotionally involved in the debate, in theory right?)

Just ribbing you. Personally I like seeing you show the gallo de pelea once in a while.

That's inaccurate....Woods has been in the public eye in one way or another since he was four years old. He was presumed black because his father was. As he got older he defined himself as non-black. This was prior to his professional career and before he was well established. I can remember reading about him when he was playing golf in college and there was controversy over his refusal to see himself as simply black. Indeed, those who wanted him to endorse their products wanted him to endorse them as a black person, which he refused to do. This combined with what some believe is his completely black appearance (presumably only those who show very few traces of African ancestry have the right to identify as something other than black) is the source of some black people's problems with Woods.