The Study of Racialism

The passing of David Matthews

By John Stoehr for The Savannah Morning News.



Predictably the writer misidentifies Tiger Woods as black. As well he doesn’t seem to understand that there has always been a middle ground between black and white in this country. It is to this location that a great many folk gravitate, though Stoehr seems to equate this with a modern-day “passing” phenomenon. In fact, people are merely locating themselves along the color spectrum where they so desire, notwithstanding the absence of any official recognition of multiracialness.

Unfortunately, David Matthews is becoming another Gregory Howard Williams ever since he gained notoriety through Brooke Kroger's book on alleged "passing." Notice that, in anti-passing tirades, European ancestry is effectively denied and the false "black" identity is presented as a BIOLOGICAL reality. Notice that the article really accuses Matthews of changing his COLOR by calling himself "white." Talk about color blindness! Don't believe your lying eyes; Matthews' "color" is "black" even if your lying eyes tell you he's "white." Get the picture?

There are so many myths designed to frighten people into accepting a false "black" identity. Some of them are mentioned in this article:

1) The myth of the fanatical, racist, Negro-blood hating white majority. The Multiracial movement disproved this myth. It was the NAACP and the rest of the "black" political and cultural elites who lined up to demand the continuation of the "one drop" myth. Most American whites have no interest in forcing those who don't look or act "black" to call themselves "black."

2) Cosmic vengeance: "black baby" throwbacks, changing adult phenotypes and other myths. Not having a "perfect" life like supposedly "pure" whites.

3) The myth that Latinos and Arabs are not part African, even though anyone familiar with them knows nearly all of them have the dreaded "Negro blood." Why would the supposedly "racist" white majority find the supposedly dreaded, hated and despised "black blood" acceptable for intermarriage as long as it comes speaking Spanish or Arabic? Anti-passing tirades take great pains not to deal with this reality. I also note that real racists tried for years to make "light-skinned Negroes" (a racist oxymoron) out of the Melungeons and Lumbees, for example. The former are nearly all white and the latter recognized as Indians. The dreaded "black blood" can't keep people down if they resist all attempts to force a "black" identity on them.

4) The "one drop" myth and other forms of forced hypodescent are based on the assumption that "black" genes are super-inferior (unlike "inferior" but recessive American Indian genes, which allow whites to express pride in that ancestry without losing their claims to whiteness). By supporting the myth that people can "look white" while being "black," American Negroes are stupidly proclaiming the inferiority of their "race." Hey, you don't see Jews demanding that we retain the Nazi terminology of "Aryan" and "non-Aryan."

Here's a picture of David Matthews:



If I saw him on the street, I wouldn't know that he had any immediate African ancestry.

He looks like an ethnic white (Italian), Hispanic, Puerto Rican or Creole to me. If he said he was 'Black' I would not be shocked as he looks a bit 'quadroon'.

However, he looks far more 'ethnic' than 'White-boy Williams' who is truly the poster child for ODR. All the so-called Balcks posted here before, even Walter White, all looked 'more Black' than Gregory. I wonder what his white brothers say......they're white but he is Black. And he calls his 1/8 Black children 'mixed' in his book.

Melanie23 wrote:

I agree. That's my perception as well.



Gregory Howard Williams...




Skin Color Becomes Shades of Gray for Author
http://www.lsu.edu/highlights/2006/10/colorline.html

He came to LSU???

No doubt he will be welcomed as a 'Negro' by Louisiana and their notorius 1/32nd Black rule. See also Susie Phipps.....

A.D. may correct me on this, but I believe that Louisiana rescinded its (1908) 1/32 rule of blackness in the 1980s, partly due to the embarrassment of the state's becoming a world laughing-stock in the Susie Phipps case. The state authorities then took possession of Naomi Drake's vital records and, to this day, no one knows where they are or even if they still exist.

But it's his right to call himself whatever he wishes. It's his life.

hi, seeing as how i'm the topic of this thread, i thought i'd add a thought or two, from the horse's mouth as it were. first of all, great site, and keep up the good work.
second, as a writer, much less a "personality" (i did find it amusing that someone here referred to my "notoriety," in the wake of brooke kroeger's book, which has sold--no reflection on her or her writing skills--around eleven copies to date) of mixed-race, i have only my perceptions of race in this country, and its import or irrelevance. i agree with many of the stated objectives and philosophies on this board--race is an arbitrary distinction, a phenotypic expression of an homogeneous species. i'm not a scientist, and i'll leave the eugenics [Sic. David meant "genetics" -- fwsweet] to the rest of you, who are far more able to break that shit down. but--in the american context--it is foolish to assert or expect that the culture at large--white culture (non-latino white culture--yeah, yeah, but what is "white?" --spare me that cunard) has embraced, or even recognized "mutli-racial"--EXCEPT as it occurs among non-black pairings. it is possible that the views expressed by me, or by those who choose to write about me, and my experiences, are hopelessly dated, out of step with an evolving and inclusive population. my experiences have not borne this out. i have and do experience racism in some form or another, at least once a month, and i live in the multi-cultural stew known as new york city. (by "experience" racism, i do not mean that it is even necessarily directed at me, just that i observe it playing out around me. constantly). but again, perhaps i come from a different time and place (grew up in baltimore, circa 1980's), and am sensitized to matters of race and identity (perhaps an understatement); but this idea of "choice," or a supposed "middle-ground" when it comes to race in america is specious. with race--a determination made BY OTHERS, for the most part (we'll get to cultural experience as linked to racial identity in a moment)--where we "decide" to land on the color line really isn't up to us, unless we are those herculean vanguards who fall into the "i will not let others define me" camp (hey--more power to them! wish i could have done it as a kid--still wouldn't have helped me get a cab, though). when i was growing up, there were only black people and white people. mixed people were black. period. (baltimore had an hispanic population of about 1 percent, so that wasn't an option. now, it's up to 4 percent). my household was black, as was my culture, as was my neighborhood. my entire known family was black. my father and grandmother were black, though as light skinned as myself--and they were horrified that i could even think of "passing." now--let's assume for a moment that i agree with the premise that my "european" ancestry was every bit as valid a claim to my identity as my "blackness" (the quotes are for you guys, i find nothing wrong with black or white as descriptors, but i am a dinosaur)--it wouldn't have mattered. i was called nigger more times than i can count, once my white friends/acquaintances discovered that my father was black. in my case, the "lying eyes" gambit was definitely only skin deep. i could have railed to the sun and moon, and the outside population's views of me would not have been altered. that is what is so insidious about race in america: it is a surface distinction, and there's not a whole lot one can do about the way one looks. to the posters who suggested that i looked "italian" or "peurto rican" or "jewish"--that was what i banked on growing up (except for the fact, as i said, that there were no peurto ricans where i came from). trouble was, the jewish kids KNEW that i wasn't one them, just by looking at me. (and where i'm from, you don't fuck around with the italians, not even in jest). but i was jewish--at least by their matrilineal laws. didn't matter. lips too thick. skin too yellow. that left one option: black. again, this quaint "mixed" thing had not taken hold. and if anyone thinks it has, ask harold ford, or better yet, ask obama once he's in the midst of his candidacy. you will find the exultations of his "multiracial" background wither into dust as america does what it does best. now, for the record, i am not saying that those who lump people into regimented and ill-fitting boxes are correct--it is a horrible practice left-over from slavery. race should not matter. but it does--at least in the world i grew up in and continue to observe. maybe this is all changing and i have been stuck in a segregated mindset that doesn't exist any longer. I HOPE SO. of course, at lunch today, a prominent nyc publisher informed me that she could never marry someone with my genetic background because her liberal jewish parents "weren't THAT liberal," and an agent told me that i wasn't really "black." maybe. but the fact that in a progressive bastion (entertainment) two early-thirty somethings felt comfortable saying that to me speaks volumes. your scholarship into what race is or isn't is valuable and honorable. what it fails to address is the actual disparity between white and black in this country. (i could parse this out further to mean rich vs. poor, but we haven't gotten that far yet; not with white katrina "survivors," and black katrina "looters.")
it has historically been a benefit to be white in this country. it still is. fact. (i am talking simple access to jobs/housing/education/fair treatment under the law, not some metaphysical ideal). that is the root and meaning of passing--not some gregor mendel bullshit about genotypes and phenotyoes. lastly, in response to this quote from Powell :

"The myth of the fanatical, racist, Negro-blood hating white majority. The Multiracial movement disproved this myth. It was the NAACP and the rest of the "black" political and cultural elites who lined up to demand the continuation of the "one drop" myth. Most American whites have no interest in forcing those who don't look or act "black" to call themselves "black.""

really? this "mythical" negro-blood hating majority was my reality. the "multiracial" movement? um, ok. i have 400 years of america's history and hundreds of personal instances of knowing for a fact that not only does america care, it cares pathologically. as a black man--or even a "mixed" man--the fear is palpable. does the "call me, harold" commercial ring a bell? as a mixed woman, it might be seen as exotica, but as a mixed man it is seen as a tincture. anyway, sorry for the winding (and long-winded) rant, but as a mixed--though i prefer black, as it speaks to a singular experience in an america that does not care about shades of grey--person, who is also the subject of this post, i couldn't help myself.

and p.s.:
tiger woods is most assuredly a black man, no matter what else he likes to call himself. take away his golf game and let him try to get a cab, or explain to the police on his honeymoon night that he's unarmed before they shoot him 52 times. let's see how far that "blasian" bullshit gets him.

i really, really do like this site and wish it had been around when i was a kid. it would have made my life a little easier. (but just a little
best,
david matthews.

I have to agree with a lot of what David Matthews has said (though not the Tiger Woods stuff). Some of the hatred spewed at mixed-race people who don't follow the multiracial party line is just ridiculous in its dismissal of history and the personal experiences of many people.

And for God's sake, why do some people continue to use the word "Negro" to refer to African-Americans? How about having enough respect for people to use the name that they have chosen for themselves?!

Surely you jest! (Or exaggerate.) Passing's Amazon.com sales rank is #223,802 in Books (See Top Sellers in Books). For comparison, my History of the Minstrel Show is ranked at #230,087 and has sold several hundred copies. Even my Legal History of the Color Line has sold a few hundred copies and it is ranked at #843,463. I would estimate that Kroeger's book has sold between 600 and 1200 copies.

Frank, that's all you can say in response to Mr. Matthews, a subtle dig? It's obvious that he was using hyperbole.

Thanks for the post Dave. I hear what you are getting at..... I get the same reaction from Creole friends who look similar to you (aka 'not quite White'. ) It's sad really, but that has been your experince in life and I don't knock it or disuade you to change.

I am bi-racial and I will always be so, feel so and tell others so, even in the face of racism, or more specifically 'White' (our people, yo ) people. That doen't change DNA, family, or history.
I leave the racists (of all stripes) to themselves. In fact, sometimes I even pity them....

No matter how hard any of us tries, people will form their own opinions.
But I am a strong enough person to 'take the heat' and let the chips fall where they may, realizing the reality IN AMERICA is that I will always be considered 'just Black' to most. But that is okay, to thy ownself be true.... Just don't ever let them force you to call yourself TOBY (Roots reference) and you will have won. My name is NOT nor will it ever be TOBY! No matter what others may check on your form, say about you, or pass you by. For example, I selected multi-racial once, and the lady changed it to Black for me. Whatever! So, what is your name?

The more things change, the more things stay the same, eh? But you will be surprised at how much 'BACK UP NOW' Americans will do, once they know that you know that you are not playing their 'just Black' game. However, iIt will take enough of US to change things. Being silent or 'down for the cause' won't do it. It's too bad we (multi-racial people) can't just be left alone. 'Blacks' have something to prove or are jealous, and 'Whites' think they are all that. But I know history and it will repeat itself. This nation will eventualy have to acknowlege us one way or another, willingly or not.

And as for you not getting a cab and all, don't just assume it was because 'they' thought you were Black. But I too have witnessed what 'others' have said about Blacks, either when they didn't know I was 'Black', or even when 'they' did. Whatever! I know I am just as good, if not better......... Hate the GAME!

My reality is similar to yours in that bi-racials/Mulattoes (who appear Black) will been seen as 'just Black' in America, but I beg to differ with anyone who says that non-Black looling hypodescents are. They can't tell and lying eyes won't make that much a difference. I have seen and witnessed such from the 1980s on........ But it will take time, and probably until all the people who lived during Jim Crow and segregation are all dead. I do not rememeber a time when Blacks were 'legally' inferior and each succeedng generation won't either. They will go by looks and how Blacks act..... I do have hope for the future as the world is too small now to expect otherwise.

The dividing line in America. IMO, is still White vs. Black and Non-Black (for obvious reasons), but time will change this, just like it has in other countries. South America has ~100 years on us, so......

I am in the 30s as well, but have only once had a kid (as I was passing in car) yell Nigger. I have lived in the Deep South all my life and have not faced such racism as what you have described. And the North/NYC is Liberal? It just goes to show not to believe the 'hype'. But that is too people. For every 1 racist/1-dropper who calls me 'Just Black', I have another who does not.

Where I and many fellow race self-describers put all this 'race stuff' down as, is: If others only see me as Black, therefore I must be just Black. Well, if others only see me as inferior, then I must be inferior too, eh?

Race in America is emotional, but logic and science (DNA) will win in the end. But for now, I just settle for a nice 'just shut them up' battle each and every time.

Regards,

And when was that vote taken?

If African Americans (and White Americans for that matter) refuse to call biracial people by our given name, I don't lose sleep over what I, or anyone else, calls them either, lol. Touche'!

P.s. I knew a lady in the 1990s who used still the word Colored. She got a free pass from most because she was >70.

I sincerely regret if my skepticism appeared to be a "subtle dig." I intended nothing of the sort. I was honestly asking if he was serious. You say that it is obvious that he was not. Now I know. I guess that I am just not very good at understanding ironical humor.

Beyond that, I really have nothing to say. You already know my position on self-identity. In my view, everyone has the moral right to self-identity as they choose, whether "Black" (like Yvette or Matthews), "multiracial" (like Melanie or Charles), "White" (like Carol Channing), or "Martian" (no example). For that matter, I think that everyone has the right to refuse to play the game entirely, as I do (although I have given serious thought to becoming a Martian).

Furthermore, I do not care how others justify their self-identity to themselves: Some claim to choose freely. Others claim to have been forced into choosing this or that. Their claimed reasons are none of my business.

Where I draw the line is that I sincerely believe that no one has the moral right to impose a self-identity involuntarily upon someone else. Such an act is demeaning and unethical. If I decide to be a Martian, I would expect and demand that everyone respect my choice.

But you already knew all that.

Look, Triguy, I am pushing seventy and my life's decisions were made long ago. I am well aware that forcibly assigning an involuntary identity on others is a popular U.S. pastime. Many Americans who call themselves "White" do it routinely, callously, without even giving it a second thought (as per Melanie's example). Many Americans who call themselves "Black" do it routinely, callously, without even giving it a second thought (as per Matthews's example). But even if the whole world went mad and began to copy the U.S., it would not affect my moral compass. I know who I am, Triguy, and my belief in everyone's right to their own person is unshakeable.

what a wonderful and valuable site. the mere fact of its existence gives me hope that the world i grew up in--essentially alone, with no others of my "kind" to turn to--will become a world in memory only. keep on keeping on, you guys. not as a shameless plug; but i do hope that some of you will come to my readings if you can; and/or buy/check out from the library my book, ace of spades. it comes out feb. 7th, and is a take on race in america i have never seen in non-fiction. it bears NO similarity to works by rebecca walker/james mcbride, et al; and many will find it polarizing, but it will hopefully get a dialogue going. it is also, in its own twisted way, very, very funny.

best to all,
david.

Welcome to this forum David. It's wonderful having the authors we discuss here make their presence known. First Yvette than you. Fantastic.

Yes, in many American minds and hearts (white, black & other) things really haven't changed much in regards to racial attitudes towards people of known biracial - specifically black/white - heritage. However, some minds and hearts are changing.

While not being pollyannaish or naive about the current state of race relations in this country - which can get very ugly indeed - I choose to focus on the positve changes in attitude that are occurring.

Everyone's personal his/herstory deeply effects one's viepoint when it comes to this race business and bi/multiracial vs. monoracial identities. We can't just forget what we've been through and why. But we don't have to let the past rule our lives or completely determine our present attitudes either.

Therefore IMO, it's hard to make blanket statements one way or another when it comes to progress (or non) regarding race realtions in this country.

Each one of us has very different and unique stories to tell regarding race, IR relationships (romantic and not) and biracial vs. monoracial identification based on our societally dictated "race", phenotypes, cultural background, gender, etc.

OK I'm rambling now. Point is it's nice that new voices are being added to our discussions here.

Hope to be reading more from you in the future.

I lived in NY for a while and it is one of the most segregated racist places I have ever been. NY is definitely a stew, with chunks of ethnicities floating around and some even mixing, but the majority keeping in their respective turfs. It is no accident that the mixed population has a lot more support groups than, say, in San Francisco. I agree with you that you have a right to identify as you see fit. I am an ardent supporter of self identity. On the same token I would say your experience is not the same as that of all other people of mixed ancestry and especially not that of first generational mixing. In those cases the debate of what to identify with tend to be much stronger and people go every which way. I see you as no different than Walter White. Born looking White to many, but fully identified as Black.


Somehow, by that picture, I highly doubt you would have had a problem getting a cab in NYC.


Depends on which Jews were around you. Sounds like you had Ashkenazi people around you. You would have passed with flying colors among the Sephardis

see above.

You do not have Harold or Obama's phenotype. Let's not use specious examples. If you are going to use an example, try James Earl Jones son.


Actually, I have seen some of the most racist people in the media. They are so flighty and PC they think they can never be racist but walk around with a ton of stereotypes in their head.


Partially agree. Thee weren't that many, if any that i can think of, that were caught leaving stores with beers, TV's etc. Taking reserves for the long haul is a little different than taking leisure items.

To a degree yes. Glass ceiling. But plenty of whites never made it past the door to profit from it.


LMAO. I agree with you, except for Harold. I still think people are taking it out of context. He went to a playboy party, they wanted to show him as a party animal. A Black playboy bunny just does not convey Playboy. Hefner is always surrounded by blondes.

Again, I know the experiences in NY, so I'll agree, but i still say you have never experienced half what a dark skinned person experiences and I think you turn a blind eye to the racism that comes from the other side as well.


Again, keep the stereotypes to yourself, because they won't fly with facts. Yes tiger woods might be discriminated against. So do many dark south asians. Doesn't change who they are. The majority of his ancestry is Asian and he looks it. By the way, the worst case of police brutality was against a white person. He was shot over 100 times. Don't assume police only target Blacks.


Naw, I think if you would have hung out with us you would have been quite surprised. My experience in SA was quite different as well. It is nice to hang out around people that can relate and still have quite varied opinions.

interesting post salsassin. off the top of my head:

"Somehow, by that picture, I highly doubt you would have had a problem getting a cab in NYC."

you're quite right; my experience in that instance comes from my hometowns of dc and baltimore, where i absolutely had trouble getting a cab; as well as my observations of ("obviously")black men in nyc trying to do same. i watch, always.

"Depends on which Jews were around you. Sounds like you had Ashkenazi people around you. You would have passed with flying colors [i]among the Sephardis."

hmmm; to go with generalizations (which i take it you don't like, but they do serve a purpose, in that they cover large populations and trends); my experience in American cities has been that most american jewry are ashkenazi. i have met very few sephardim, unless they are first generation iranian, post shah exiles; or perhaps ethiopian; but perhpaps in the midwest or west coast there is an abundance of sephardim i'm unaware of--that's entirely possible. but i meet almost none, and i think it's safe to say that NYC has it's share of jews. (and i am in the entertainment biz, so my world is pretty much limited to jews).

but i was jewish--at least by their matrilineal laws. didn't matter. lips too thick. skin too yellow. that left one option: black.

i stand by my above assertion.

You do not have Harold or Obama's phenotype. Let's not use specious examples. If you are going to use an example, try James Earl Jones son.

i'll sort of agree with you on that, except that my point was not to suggest that ford and i shared a phenotype; it was to assert that much of white america has not embraced the notion of "biracial," and would simply label ford black (and in fact, they do label him as such) despite the fact that he is obviously mixed. i'm not making a value judgment per se on how mainstream america chooses to identify others, just stating that they do so, and how they do so.

Actually, I have seen some of the most racist people in the media. They are so flighty and PC they think they can never be racist but walk around with a ton of stereotypes in their head.

amen, to that.

To a degree yes. Glass ceiling. But plenty of whites never made it past the door to profit from it.

not to a degree, to an almost certainty. i will not go into the scores of studies (the most recent done by johns hopkins), tracing the progress of black america since the civil rights movement. EVERY minority group with the exception of black men have made economic/educational gains. black men have actually declined in every indicator since the mid 70's. the "plenty" of whites argument is a straw man; all things being equal, whites still have a "benefit" of the doubt which greets them based on appearances only. true, this might dissipate once the five minute grace period is over, and gaps in education, class, etc. are manifested, but to discount or minimize the absolute benefit of white skin in america is disingenuous.

LMAO. I agree with you, except for Harold. I still think people are taking it out of context. He went to a playboy party, they wanted to show him as a party animal. A Black playboy bunny just does not convey Playboy. Hefner is always surrounded by blondes.

we choose to view this differently. this was a play on southern (white) fears of miscegentaion. i can't see how anyone could see it another way; but i respect that some people do.

Again, I know the experiences in NY, so I'll agree, but i still say you have never experienced half what a dark skinned person experiences and I think you turn a blind eye to the racism that comes from the other side as well.

Exactly. So consider, if you will, that all this "ire," of mine, and this as the result of having skin as light as my own. I was not the recipient of the worst of it, but i got enough to know that it wasn't very pleasant. And, my perspective may be much broader than most, for how many people actually got to live among the (hypocritically) tolerant mainstream, as one of them; and among the minority population, as one of them? not many. it is a tricky phenotypic fluke to pull off. (again, exceptions are invalid tools of argument, because by their nature they are rare enough to not have an appreciable impact). but hopefully, i have been able to describe an america that both sides thought they knew. maybe not. and i must admit that i'm not quite sure what you mean by racism that comes from the "other side." if you mean that i ignore black people's "racism," it's because i do. we need to define our terms. to my mind, (cluttered though it is), black people can't be racist. racism, in the american context, needs to have an institutional component. do blacks in america have the ability to deny whites (or anybody else) housing? jobs? education? no. so black people can be prejudiced, but not, in my polemic estimation, racist. but many will and do disagree with me.

Again, keep the stereotypes to yourself, because they won't fly with facts. Yes tiger woods might be discriminated against. So do many dark south asians. Doesn't change who they are. The majority of his ancestry is Asian and he looks it. By the way, the worst case of police brutality was against a white person. He was shot over 100 times. Don't assume police only target Blacks.

i respectfully disagree on the tiger woods front. myself, and many other americans beleive that tiger woods is a black man. doesn't mean he is, just that he is identified by many as. his naacp award is confirmation enough of that to me. but then again, many people say that i am white, because that is the evidence of their eyes, so i dig what you are saying about appearances. and facts are all i deal with, and then i hone them. it's my job. and salsassin, i sincerely hope that you are not suggesting, by your singular example of a white man abused by the police, that police brutality is color blind? i can't and won't believe that you are saying that. i can't even comment on that part of your post because it is an ad captandum argument you simply can't back up.
and to your point about south asians: yes, many are, i'm sure, discriminated against. but what i am trying to get at is a deeper understanding of what prejudice is, and isn't. i always come back to black and white, because it is the bloody minuet america has been dancing to for 400 years. we still haven't figured it out. EVERY other ethnic minority in america has, by relative contrast, flourished (notice that i said "relatively"). my concern is with how racism affects opportunity and class in this culture, not whether it makes someone "feel bad" (i'm not minimizing the feeling bad part, i just think it would be better for a group to be able to eat, even if they felt bad, rather than the other way around).
south asians, with the exception of small parts of the west coast, have generally done very well in america, the vietnamese, bengali and pakistani populations in particular. their rates of college attendance for second generation populations, and rates of incarceration are, respectively, very high and very low. whenever anyone suggests that there is any corellation between discrimination of one group, as opposed to--or in concert with--black americans, i am very, very, concerned. to discount the impact of slavery in this country, and its lasting psychology is intellectually and emotionally dishonest. there is NO analagous example. once you remove the N factor of people who were brought here against their will, and people who chose to come here, you are left with a zero sum.
now, having said that, it probably is time black america lost its a priori sense of victimhood and self-fulfilling prophecies; but how that can happen is another story, and one i have neither the intellect or stamina to even broach.
and yes, i agree with you that this is a great place to hear others' view points and have a great discussion.

This thread started with a discussion of David Matthews. Specifically, it was about his interesting combination of Black self-identity and European phenotype. It also addressed his demanding the right to self-identify as he chooses, while questioning that right in others (specifically, professional golfer Tiger Woods).

But a new discussion developed regarding whether African Americans can commit racist acts. This is a tangent to the original thread. Consequently, per The Rules, paragraph A.5, I have split that discussion to a new thread titled Can African Americans Commit Racist Acts? in the “History of the Color Line” forum.

Those who wish to debate whether some groups are incapable of “racism” should continue the discussion at that location. Those who wish to continue discussing Mr. Matthews’s opinions and arguments regarding the original topic (self-identity) should continue below.