The Study of Racialism

At the request of a male poster here at ODR.org, I'm starting this topic here in the Improving U.S. Society forum where men can participate. The original post began in the Women Only forum.

Originally posted on March 21, 2006

It may not be so well know to the general public, in fact, this knowledge may even be esoteric in nature but the legal impact of the ODR was struck down in the US on June 12, 1967. Yet, to this day, there are many who still believe and insist that any black ancestry makes one black and obligates those with black ancestry to identify as black. There are white people who embrace this as well as black people. I’m sure that many of us have our anecdotal stories of encounters with black, biracial and white folks who have expressed ODR laden opinions aimed at biracial people.

Do any of you see any evidence of the ODR falling apart? I would like to generate some discussion on how we can deconstruct the ODR. Today, in a meeting at work, the topic of minority medical researchers came up. Apparently, far east Asians are no longer considered minorities in the medical research field. In the discussion for more minority involvement in the medical research field, Caucasians were mentioned. I interjected the following questions: Who exactly is Caucasian in this context of acquiring more non-Caucasian scientists? Is Caucasian defined by genetics or is it merely defined by social construction? I could see that my questions presented some challenges to their way of thinking. Some thought that the questions were interesting. I didn't get any real answers.

Any thoughts on this?

Deconstructing the ODR: A simple problem with a complex solution? A complex problem with a simple solution? Neither? Is there any middle ground? That’s probably the gray area that makes the ODR such a challenge. At what point does the ODR standard (e.g., 1/32) change? Since it’s based on physical and genetic differences regardless of merit, is it quashed by official un-designation on a birth certificate, despite “knowledge of” its existence?

Though the ODR and hypodescendency together may appear to be illogical and irrelevant, the ODR by itself may be more easily equated with a “mindset”. Ironically, though the ODR originated for the benefit of whites in America, the core black American constituency today is probably the biggest hurdle to a formally recognized and accepted dissolution of the ODR. I.e., very few blacks who themselves cannot identify as anything else but black want to be left off the boat to “unblackness”, so to speak. The flip side of the coin, white America still spends an awful lot of time trying to be as white as it can be, sometimes to its own detriment. Has the white identifier been compromised and diluted by cultural oversaturation? Maybe.

Collectively, interracial, intercultural and interethnic mixing has significantly eroded the ODR in the truest sense by weakening the strength of the physical phenotype associated with the visible ancestry most attributable to sub-Saharan black origin. That said; the passing of time and the self-isolation of the pro-black zealot contingent have actually made it easier to draw a clearer distinction between traditional black (i.e., of undisputable and significant black African ancestry) and multiracial/mixed factions.

For the sake of any valid argument, if the demise of the ODR were proposed to the general population, white America might simply ask; “well, what should we call you if you’re not black?” Mind you, many mixed-race blacks have absolutely no interest in solely identifying as white, they just want to have the option of doing so, regardless of feasibility. Ah, a dilemma has arisen. Going one step further, those who would elect to identify as white would face some significant obstacles in being “accepted” as such, particularly if they didn’t have “the look” of believability. More ominously, even government eradication of all references to racial classification still wouldn’t curb the appetite of many to designate “blackness” based on visual observation that has been ingrained in the fabric of American society for hundreds of years.

Accordingly, understanding the benefits and the consequences of being tagged as “black” in America is one of the first steps necessary to eliminate the ODR, even in its most informal and unguarded form. Sadly, the ODR can only be completely eliminated if today’s so-called black American population officially fragments into “definitely” black and “not-definitely” black. In short, traditional blacks in America would probably have to chart their own course and recruit based on a universal “is black” standard that is scientifically and culturally valid, in order for the effect of the ODR to be significantly diminished, if not eliminated altogether.

It all depends on what the poster MrSolo means by the word ''mindset.'' But you already asked that.

Is mindset a casual refence to social ills or something more penetrating.

Source, please.

Also, which origination do you mean? The first appearance of the concept of invisible Blackness in 1830 Ohio, or its first adoption as law in 1910 Tennessee?

One indication may be that birth certificates in some states -- or so I've been told -- no longer include information on race.

It will take time, but it will fade out eventually, especially after the death of every American born before 1967.

DNA mapping and the Human GENOME Project has already proven (if I'm not mistaken) that all humans share a unique single ancestor/ancestor pair. As science and the evidence of DNA (and personal results) are more widely known among the masses, people ['Whites' esp], will have to acknowledge that all humans are the same, really.

Now, that doesn't mean, 'Kumbya' and all that, as people will continue to separate and divide into factions, etc. However, these groups will not be based on 'race', or 'ancestry' rather than on looks, income, religion, culture..yada, yada, yada outward and changeable characteristics.

The myth of the ODR is less than 100 years old, only practiced by some Americans, and will eventually die as science and society moves on. The people who will be 'left behind' are not the 'Blacks', but any people/group who fails to prepare for their future.

Why Americans born before 1967? Also why would it have to require Americans dying for the ODR to change? I know many Americans who are born before 1967 who are against the ODR Not sure if I understand your reasoning.

1964 Civil Rights Act
1967 Loving vs. Virgina <--- ODR legally dead (socially alive)
1968 Assasination of MLK



U.S. culture changed by the 1970s. It was during the 1970s that a Black family could buy a home in a 'White' area without a cross being burned (although it did rarely happen, I knew a biracial girl whose IR family had a cross burned in their yard in late 1970s/1980s, sm. town in La.) HUD was on the case with EEOC.

Everyone born after 1967 (really the late 60's) did not experience/does not rememeber legal segregation. Now, it did still occur (desegregation of NO public schools was in 1971.), but legally, the practice ended.

People whose childhood was in the 1970s-1980s witnessed a different era than others before. No legal segregation, no whites only water fountains, no back of the bus, etc. Those years (post 1967) are the foundation for what we live today in modern America.

Racism will always exist in some form in the human heart, but there are still people alive today who remember all the ills/evil of life in the US pre-Civil Rights era and until they are dead, AAs as a group, IMO, will still be looked upon as 'other' vs. 'another'.

What is historical information only to me and other 'minorities' born after 1967, they experienced and/or remember:

-'boy' was the way to address an adult Black male,
-science taught that women/minorities were 'inferior' or less evolved
-Blacks could not vote, were disenfranchised
-IR marriage was illegal
-the denial of economic opportunity/resources (Blacks)
-the denial of home loans, small business loans
-mass [organized] racial violence against Blacks
-Jim Crow
-not having Black classmates
-not seeing Blacks on tv, radio, etc
-no Blacks on their own record covers
-no Blacks on national magazine covers
-no TV shows with Blacks as main characters
-no/few Blacks in gov't
-segregated housing, hospitals, transportation systems
-etc

That's probably why people still say the 'first AA/Black to...' when prefacing people of color in certain arenas. When they stop saying that/stop counting 'achievements', then AAs will have gotten somewhere and been 'normalized'.

I understand your points, Melani, but I was born before 1967, and do not remember segregation....I think it's where I grew up more than anything else. Wow, I was sheltered when I look back!!!



My parents bought a home in a "White" area in 1965, one month after the riots in Watts. This is where I grew up, went to school, have life long friends.

My grandfather was born in 1900, he hung out with and spent the night at the homes of his "White friends", 100 years ago.

But I can understand this probably would not have happened in your part of the country.

Not every state in the country had a Jim Crow/"Mississippi Burning" like environment before 1967.The chances of a Black family living in some state like Nevada for example before 1967 would most likely have had a slim to none chance of ever being terrorized by a group like the klan.

By the Klan no, but there were cases of black families being terrorized after moving into all-white or non-black neighborhoods outside of the south.

In the neighborhood I grew up in in the Bronx, New York the first two "black" families (one was half Chinese) that moved into the area in the mid to late 60s received bricks through their windows and other kinds of vandalism, a petition calling for their expulsion, physical violence and verbal harrasment of their children, etc. There was no Klan, but there were quite a few Italian and Irish-American folks (the former especially) who made it clear they were not wanted. Indeed, even as a child in the mid to late 70s, black and Hispanic kids in my neighborhood would often get chased out of the local public park because it was not "theirs" to be in.

As a matter of fact, the "sundown" towns ("n___, don't let the sun set on you in this town") were a phenomenon unique to the north. The practice was usually enforced by police officers obeying municipal ordinances, rather than by extra-legal means. According to the most exhaustive study of the phenomenon, "probably a majority of all incorporated places [in the United States] kept out African Americans."

Dean,

Yes, you are correct. Jim Crow et al., was not true 100% of the time everywhere.

For example, my dad (born 1939) says, there were Whites who lived in his neighboorhood/nearby. He said it was others, Whites outside of their community who came in/around and caused trouble.

There are exceptions to my list probably in every state - even in the South. Not all Blacks were poor or disenfranchised (back in the day) either. Not every area was segregated, etc. However, generally speaking, the law/custom was to exclude 'Blacks' from having equal status in society.

I've heard an old saying by older folk along these lines-

"In the South, they [Whites] didn't care how close you got, as long as you didn't get too high. In the North, they didn't care how high you got, along as you didn't get too close."