The Study of Racialism

[The following debate over site politcy was split from Black Woman Kidnapped, Tortured, Raped, and Called N Word in the "Improving U.S. Society" forum. -- FWS]


Frank:

All due respect but what you said has a lot of falsehoods.



Frank what you just said it blatantly and purposefully untrue. Why you feel the need to do this I have no idea whatsoever other than you think you know what I am thinking and instead of asking me pointed directed questions you assume and based statements on your own assumptions.

I have never ever told anyone on this site they can not identify how they wish or on the net. Google my name and try to find any place that I have said this. Please find a quote where I said someone has to identify as black if they are of mixed race or a multiracial ancestry?

My issue with mulattokid was that he lied about black people, put them down, and disparaged them as a way of expressing his identity. I said it was not necessary to do that in order to be proud of you or to identify as you wish. I said this over and over and over again.

I also said that to do that was self hating. Why? Not because he himself is "black". I would not even define him as black, as you know, and everyone on this site knows, I use the term mulatto.

What I said was he is of black ancestry, he said mulatto so I'm guessing he has a black parent.

Half of him comes from black people, for him to put down whites or blacks in that fashion in order to feel proud of whatever or distant himself from whatever I see is false pride and as sick.

I have never said he was black or must identify as black.

To me you can expand this beyond race.

It is like a person marrying into money who grew up in a trailer park and having kids.

The kid is not poor, nor did he grow up in a trailer park. He might have made accomplishments in his life and is proud of his friends and family. That does not mean he has to make hyperbolic statements (which are false as you even said "he did not know what he was talking about") and damn the lower class (his father's class) in order for him to reinforce his class identity as separate from that of his father.

In this situation...is this person "lower class"? No. Obviously not This has nothing to do with how the person chooses to identify personally. Not to me...that is a separate issue, one you can't seem to wrap your head around to save your life. Is it really that complicated?


Also Mulattokid also did not say he was Anglo-Americans of part-African descent

That is false, at least when I was on the board.

What he said was he was NOT black and was mulatto which made him not black and he said he could explain why this was in several ways.

I never disagreed with him on that, not once.

He never said he was Anglo American when I was on this site. If so please show me.

The point I was making with my comment was this woman to me (and I'm sure to most people here) could be mulatto.

However, how she identifies (if it be black or whatever) does not change the reality of how she appears to a lot of people.

Her saying she is white, mulatto, Asian, Native America is not going to change the fact of what these people clearly saw her as.

As I said before, one should not and must not judge themselve or define themselves strictly on what someone thinks of them, however I believe we should also be cognoscente of those things.

As for the rule:

[b]Do not criticize anyone’s choice of ethnic or “racial” self-identity. — If you disagree with someone’s choice of ethnic or “racial” self-identity, keep it to yourself. This applies whether they are individuals or groups, and whether they are site members or not.[/quote]

When did I do this?

I did not say what she should define herself as. I also did not critisize her for saying she is black, actually she did not say anything to my knowledge, the medial has called her black, not her or her mother from what I have seen. I'm assuming the mother considers them black, but that is an assumption not based on any facts I have seen.

I did not say she could not call herself anything she wanted.

That is not the issue. One can define themselves however they want. Once can even back it up with genetic data.

Where have I ever stated otherwise or said those things are not valid to me.

I'm pointing out an example of common perception still prevalent in this country.

If you don't like that, then don't get angry at me, keep doing what you are doing and you might be able to change that...but it has not change yet in most areas of the nation.

Frank:

and after I just told you yesterday about my cousins who I am close to, one of which who does not call helf black or African America and how I have no issue with that or her life...and you still keep spouting the same rhetoric, things I have never said, I just don't get it

If you do not want people to think as I do then make a rule that says...

One may only consider people whatever the identify as and make no statements about how that identity may be perceived by others or the effect it might have on that person.

That is basically what is is about. Not questioning how one chooses, you don't even want it discussed what effect one's choice has on one's interaction with one's environment and how other players in the environment may view them or accept their identity.

So that is your rule suggestion if that upsets you ban it.

I apologize if my sarcasm was in bad taste, but it was in no way what you said it was...that is completely nonsense, I won't sit here and let you dictate to me my opinion based on what you think I want to say.

Okay. Try it his way. You wrote, "according to the news reports the people might be charged with hate crimes for repeatedly calling her a "nigger", maybe it would have helped if she said she was not black."

Now, you and I both know that you do not really think her saying that would have helped. As you said, it is sarcasm. Okay. So tell me: exactly who is the sarcasm aimed at? Who are you making fun of? Not the victim, obviously. So, who?

DH, six sociopaths calling a mixed person a N------ shouldn't change or influence anyone's self identity.

Nor should we grant them such power in the first place. That power is yours and yours alone, and the moment its handed off, you just put yourself back on a figurative plantation.

You are exactly right. Exactly. It would not have helped.

My point is a reminder...not a statement of what people should or should not do.


The sarcasm is not aimed at anyone particular.

As I have stated over and over everyone should free to identify how they want, and people should not be forced to choose a particular grouping and they should not have to base identity on how others see them.


Correct me if I am overstepping, but I think we both agree with that.

On this thread, I think that some people (and to be honestly I'm not naming anyone specific because I can't think of anyone specific at the time) think that the very act of self identification and not having it challenged is the "be all and end all".

I believe that to be false.

I think you would also agree with me this woman has significant non-black West African admixture and on this site she could easily call herself whatever she wants, correct?

Lets say (for example, I'm not saying she should identify this way) she said she was white. She marked it on the census form and she everyone here accepted her as white.

Would that have stopped these sociopaths from doing what they did while calling her black specific racial slurs?

You just said it yourself. It would not have helped.

So my point is we should not lose site of the fact this is a multi-step process.

1) One is power to identify.

Agreed it is a big one. One that I support and have always supported. You have no clue how many times I have argued with black people on the net and in real life over this and even defended my family members who are biracial.

That being said that can not be the end...in my opinion.

2) Is likely the most important. If you don't change public perception how you identify has meaning to a population of 1, you.



I'm am a African American male who is still fairly young (30).

If I identify as mulatto or Native American. Great. If I reject all of those and identify as "human" that's (actually personally is superior).

If I based my self concept on what others thought of me, I would not be college educated, not have worked and lived abroad, not have married my wife, I would not have played bass in a rock group in college, I would have likely spent some time in jail, I would have kids out of wedlock...there are all kinds of stereotypes carried by all people (even other black people) of what a 30 year old black male should be or is.


Obviously I believe one should define themselves...I feel I have defined myself as an individual.


That being said I'm not naive enough to think that others who I interact with on a daily basis do not hold the stereotypes above based on my appearance and only my appearance. To do that can not only be problematic it can be dangerous. There are some neighborhoods (as in Houston or L.A.) that I know for a fact if I walked through looking how I do (even if I was a from Cuba, Dominican Republic) I have a good chance of being shot dead or assaulted only because of my appearance and being in the wrong area at the wrong time.

So I was pointed out (maybe in not the most tasteful way) that those who hype the ability to identify should have that but they should also be aware that because they can choose an identity does not mean others will accept that in reality. The real challenge for these people, in my opinion, is changing the societal framework that defines people along traditional racial lines (at least since my grandfather was a child).


That is a big challenge.

So call it a smack at naivety. It is not to mean that people can not or should not identify as they want.

It was not pointed at anyone in particular as I have not really spoke to anyone about this, but to you on a post yesterday I believe about Skip Gates where you mentioned "outing people" that got me thinking about a lot of things. In the post we were not disputing your identity...nor have we ever, so it was not directed to an individual on this site.

Nor was it directed at the victim, as I never said she should not be black. In fact I have no clue what she call herself, and it does not matter, I was going by what her attackers called her.

I never said that...you obviously didn't read what I said and you are projecting...please stop...my opinion is far more nuanced. Please reread and if you don't get it then try asking a question from what you wrote I can tell you didn't read what I said, because I obviously agreed with your statement in full.

1.3 Limit Political AdvocacyYou may say how things actually are (or were, historically) in any forum. But you may say how things should be only in the forums where political advocacy is allowed. Do not say how things should be or argue that a particular course of civic action is desirable, undesirable, just, or unjust anywhere in the site but in the forums where political advocacy is allowed.


I thought I was well in line with this rule.

I was in a forum that allows political advocacy and I stated my sarcasm was directed at "how things are" or still are.

I never said I agree with that or anything about how one "should" identify or if an identity was wrong of invalid.



Another rule

1.4 Do Not Get Offended. — Many topics here might offend you. History forums tell how Europeans conquered, colonized, enslaved, and exploited everyone else. Anthropology forums discuss prehistoric ancestry. Ethnicity forums examine the Black/White test-score gap. Latin America forums cover lack of Latino assimilation. Each of these topics can offend some readers. But if the data presented are substantiated with sources (see 1.2.1) then you must not complain. If you are offended, leave the site. Do not complain that you are offended by substantiated data.

What I said might have been offensive, and I apologized for that, although according to the rules I did not break that, I was not harassing anyone or attacking anyone.

1.1 Understand the Goal of the Group. — The site’s mission is to inform and to become informed about U.S. racialism, nothing more. The site does not support any political stance. It is not a support group for multiracial or biracial individuals. It neither supports nor opposes affirmative action. It neither supports nor opposes government demands for the collection of “racial” data. It does not strive to reduce “racism.” It does not strive to improve U.S. “race” relations. It is not a place to vent your grievances. Other sites have broader goals. Do not complain that the site’s mission is too narrow.

My comment and the post itself were about U.S. racialism...current racialism.

It is quite true that many people who are mixed race/multiracial with significant are seen as black on site by many (maybe the majority but I won't say for sure) of Americans of all identities.

I have never said that this means people should not identify how they want. What I did say is that people should also identify and seek to also change the perception in the general population in order to reinforce that identity outside of just themselves or their close circle or it has limited meaning in society as a whole.

That is not challenging anyone's identity or telling people how they should identify.

It is a political statement of sorts that should be allowed in that section as it is open to advocacy.

That is correct. The problem was not political advocacy. The problem was that DH's sarcasm was aimed at Americans of visible sub-Saharan heritage who reject a Black self-identity. It ridiculed their choice by implying that such a rejection would not help them escape racist monters.


Hanzou gets to the heart of why rule 2.6 was made. It comes down to people telling others how to self-identify "for their own good."

We all agree that USAmericans are likely to see a person of slight African appearance is being "Black" (member of the Black endogamous group), no matter how that person privately self-identifies. We also agree that if the person then states that they are not Black, but Dominican, Puerto Rican, Melanesian, Lumbee, Melungeon, Redbone, multiracial, biracial, mulatto, or whatever, they will get three different reactions.

1. Most USAmericans are polite enough to go along with it. Some may have doubts in their own minds, but they will keep silent out of common courtesy. In our experience (Mary Lee and me) at gigs and conferences, this applies to all Hispanics, to the great majority of non-academic White people, and to a slim majority of African Americans.

2. Some USAmericans dispute the person and say that such self-choice is reprehensible because it weakens the political solidarity of the Black endogamous group. In our experience, this applies to almost all academics in social studies and the humanities, and to a large minority of African Americans. (Mainly, political and social leaders who cloak themselves in Blackness.)

3. A few USAmericans argue that the choice is self-destructive because it would not have prevented them from being lynched during the Jim Crow era. It will not avoid their being tortured and killed by monsters today. It will not end racism, poverty, crime, or global warming. They argue that those who reject Black self-identity will suffer more deeply when society's inevitable racism crashes down on them than those who braced themselves for it by self-identifying as Black. In short, they argue that you must yield to what racist society demands or you will be punished.

Argument #2 is forbidden in this site because it leads to sterile, interminable, and remarkably monotonous squabbles that teach nothing and lead nowhere. (The site's mission, you may recall, is to inform and to become informed.)

Argument #3 is forbidden in this site because, as Hanzou points out, the argument is a not-so-subtle defense of virulent racism (do what the racists order you to do or you will suffer). And we are here to study racialism, not to defend its most pathological manifestation. In all honesty, I like DH's suggestion, "One may … no statements about how [a non-Black] identity may be perceived by others or the effect it might have on that person." I just think that it goes a bit too far. If someone uncovers new data about the consequences of non-Black self-identity, I would be eager to hear it. But to simply repeat the tired old advice, "yield to The Man or you will suffer," adds nothing to our knowledge.

I agree with statement #1

I am not arguing nor have I argued in favor of statement #2

I stated why here:




http://onedroprule.org/viewtopic.php?t=1278&start=40

I have never made nor do I believe statement 3.




please quote where I personally said something like that on this site. I stated several times in this thread I and yesterday on the link above I do not believe that is correct.

Being aware of something and buying into it are two totally different things.

So once again, besides a matter of taste your issue is what

Sure. No problem:

Posted: Thu 13 Sep 2007 13:56: "However, how she identifies (if it be black or whatever) does not change the reality of how she appears to a lot of people. Her saying she is white, mulatto, Asian, Native America is not going to change the fact of what these people clearly saw her as."

Posted: Thu 13 Sep 2007 14:02: "you don't even want it discussed what effect one's choice has on one's interaction with one's environment and how other players in the environment may view them or accept their identity."

Posted: Thu 13 Sep 2007 14:39: "Would that have stopped these sociopaths from doing what they did while calling her black specific racial slurs? You just said it yourself. It would not have helped. … I'm not naive enough to think that others who I interact with on a daily basis do not hold the stereotypes above based on my appearance and only my appearance. To do that can not only be problematic it can be dangerous. … those who hype the ability to identify should have that but they should also be aware that because they can choose an identity does not mean others will accept that in reality."

Let me know if you want some more.

Frank you are getting a little ridiculous with this, I think you are a little more intelligent than for me to have to constantly repeat the obvious.






Sure bring some more.

What is your issue? How many times do I need to repeat myself.

What exactly is complicated about this?


I also never said a person who does not accept the one drop rule will suffer automatically or should suffer nor did I imply it.

That is a strawman.


2.3 Do not engage in straw man. — Make sure that you understand what the other person is saying before replying. Never caricature or distort another person’s argument.

Either you really can't comprehend what I'm saying or you are doing this purposely.

Then again I guess the rules don't apply to the moderator.

Here is a question Frank?

Based on what I have said on this site do you believe I will raise my children as "black" or African American and promote that identity for them?

Is that what you are getting?

If you don't think I will.

Do you think I believe my children should suffer (be punished) by black or white people for not declaring themselves "black"?

The rules definitely do apply to me also. I assure you that my concern is not a deliberate straw man. If I have misunderstood you, I apologize. Let me see if I understand you.

You seem to be saying that English-speaking Americans who look part-African but reject a Black identity in the United States should be aware that, despite their choice, U.S. society will still see them as Black and they will suffer from racism, despite their identity rejection.

Is that your position? If not, where does that statement err?

Regarding your questions: I have neither an opinion nor any interest in how you raise your children. As to your second question, I would say "yes," in the sense stated above. You believe that if your children come out looking part-African, they will be subjected to just as much racism no matter how they self-identify, and that this is something that they should be taught and made aware of.

Close but not exactly.

You have black ancestry but I'm pretty certain most people do not see you as a black man.

I think "a majority of people in U.S. society" will see them as black based on phenotype. We know that in this country (since at least the 1920's) people are trained from child hood to identify stereotypical West African features and then classify those people as black. This is not even opinion as it has been said on this site and complained about over and over, so I will consider that as fact.

When I mean people I mean a majority, not 100% of Americans.

Keeping this in mind, I'm saying one is free to identify as one wishes...or should be. I"m very libertarian so I to idea of someone making someone else identify, by force or coercion is fundamentally against my belief system.

However, that is me. We both know many people don't feel that way, but I agree with you most people, once told or informed of one's choice will not say anything due to being polite or some will just accept it as a reality.

One should be aware that despite that one still (based on appearance) might be subject at various times in one's life to anti-black direct racism (I said anti-black but there are various targets of racism or discrimination and I believe we are talking about black/white mixes here).

That is my position.

Do I feel this is right?

No.

Do I feel this is reality?

Yes.

Do I think people should try to work to change this?

Yes.

However, I'm a pragmatist, and despite what I "wish" I am more directed at what is and how to navigate and change what can be changed in a reasonable time period, other things are secondary or tertiary.


That's it.

So going back to my statement, which I have apologized for as it was in bad taste.

The fact this women, who most blacks would say is "light skinned" could easily have a white father or some white grandparents she was still viewed as "black" by others. Her saying otherwise does not change what they see her as necessarily.

I believe this is something we should remain aware of and also do more to change, because as I said...self definition outside of you may or may not mean much.

So with ever right (and I believe it is a right) we must also consider consequences good and bad. I'm not justifying anything, it is all wrong.

However I don't control society, I live here...until a critical mass moves another way some things will continue...

It seems some on this site are so caught up in there ability to define self, they forget that is only part of the problem they feel they are having with identity in this society.

We don't live on islands.

You three points seem to be (1) We should continue to debate your first warning. (2) Hanzou also violated rules. (3) Your twisting Hanzou's plea for Black leaders to try to soften the hate into his saying that Black people create the hate was not really a straw man, and that your making this distortion via deliberate ridicule was not discourteous.

Regarding the first, I have no interest in continuing that debate. I have made my reasoning clear. Regarding the second, in accordance with rule 4.1 you are obligated to report rules violations when they happen. To wait until you are warned is the tu quoque fallacy and carries no weight. Regarding the third, I suggest that you PM the other moderators. I will rescind the warning if you can get two moderators to recommend this action (and no moderator supports the warning or recomends your outright suspension).

1) No need to continue to debate my firs warning, as you were clearly wrong and caught using a straw men. I violated no rule as I did not question anyone's choice of identity. That was your argument, I never ever said that. I said over and over again anyone can identify as they wish.

2) I did not twist anything and I did not do what you said which is quite clear from what I posted, in his complete argument. You entire warning rested on the the fact that he said "prominent blacks" and I said "black people". You said I manipulated it because I said "black people", that is clearly false as the debate we were having took place over a few hours on one day and he repeatedly said "blacks, NAACP, other blacks...etc. I also quoted him verbatim in saying that black leaders and "blacks" (unqualified) to fan racial animosity. It is clear. He said it. Then he implied that at least some blacks can help to control this. Refusal, on your part, to not read his entire argument does not make a straw man.

3) why is that? What is the deadline for report, he is still engaging me on the issue is he not, even today, the same argument.

I do not see a 24 hour rule to reporting. Please show me.

The rule is:




That is exactly what I did. So are you saying (and I'm asking) if one person violates a rule in an argument with someone else that violation is invalidated by the other personal also breaking a rule and reporting it?

So whoever gets caught first is in violation, but the other person gets a pass? Is that it?

4) I have taken this up with Sagscend (she said she understood my argument) and Dchapman (the later said he was busy and will look at it later).

Dragon Horse's posting privilege is hereby suspended until September 28, 2007 for openly defying a moderator. (Rule 4.7.)

Frank did you or did you not use a straw man? Even if it was unintentionally. Is it defiant to ask a question? If so then delete it, if not then answer it. Did I ever say on this site, at any time, people were not free to identify how they choose and it is not wrong to punish people for that?