Why does blackness trump other races?

[oinkment]

We learned this week about Strom Thurmond's illegitimate daughter by a black woman. What makes his daughter black instead of white? Why is Tiger Woods black instead of Asian? How much "whiteness" does it take to overcome "blackness"?

Doesn't this prove just how arbitrary and subjective issues of race are? Why are we even still talking about it? It seems to me that meaningful social differences between people are cultural or economic, not racial. I'd be willing to acknowledge an African American culture, as distinct from that of recent African immigrants, say, or African descendants in spanish-speaking households, or West Indian immigrants. These are all distinct cultural groups and shouldn't be lumped together just because of some superficial physical resemblance.

[joeybee12]

1. My guess--man's evolution has its roots in Africa, and since the first

men were black, it became the dominant gene.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

8. joeybee12 thank you you grab those words right outta my mouth

[loudnclear]

2. It proves how stupid racism is and how hypocritical most racists are.

Humas can rationalize anything...that's what sets us apart from other animals. I bet the other animals are happy about that.

[joeybee12]

3. And welcome--be sure to get rid of that unlucky 13 next to your posts!!

[Don Claybrook]

4. Hey, your idea worked in South Africa, why not here?

Divide-and-conquer. In South Africa, a minority white ruling class was wildly successful in magnifying differences between different native groups and therefore, they were able to brutally rule as the minority.

Now if we could just subclassify black people here into different groups under the auspices of cultural pride or somesuch, we could make sure they have less of a public voice.

What a horrible, horrible idea.

Edited to clarify: cultural pride and awareness is a wonderful thing, but diluting a historically-oppressed minority's voice by separating along these lines is what qualifies as a horrible idea.

[pop goes the weasel]

11. How do you get that

out of what oinkment wrote? Asking why someone of mixed race parentage is considered one thing and not the other is a legit question. There can be no worthwhile discussion of race if people who bring up the subject are immediately condemned as racists for having brought it up.

As to oinkment's original question, it goes back to America's history of race laws. Rather than let people decide for themselves (the way Tiger Woods has decided he is mixed, not black) what their "race" is, the state categorized people according to whether they met certain criteria. People from Africa, according to the racist notions of the day, were forever unassimalable. That meant that all their descendents were too, no matter how many more white ancestors a person might have than black ancestors. Underpinning this bizarre reasoning was the law that slavery was inherited through the mother. To be black was to be a slave, to be a slave was to be black. A white father was unimportant, according to the law. Blond hair and blue eyes were unimportant to the law--Homer Plessy was black, because the law made him so. He might have decided he was black without the law's insistence, but he wasn't given that option.

Only in this last generation have people had the option of deciding for themselves who they are, of redefining legal categories of race. Strom Thurmond's daughter was black by law, for instance. Maybe she could have "passed" into whiteness (I haven't seen her, so I don't know if she could or not) but that would be possible only if she cut off her family and cultural heritage completely. For most people, the tradeoff wasn't worth it. Who would want to disown a loving family?

Some people are a tad on the defensive about the breakdown of the old regime. Perhaps they are afraid of what may come, since no one knows what the result will be. Despite those fears, we are clearly in a time of flux. If we're going to end up with something good, I think we need more conversation about race issues, not less.

[Don Claybrook]

5. Another point

Based on your reasoning, shouldn't we subclassify "white" as lots and lots of different cultural groups? Let's see, we could have little checkboxes for Albanian, British, French, Italian, Croatian, Ablanian-British, French-Italian, Lithuanian-Croatian, Romanian-German-Finnish, and so on.

Then they could form really powerful groups, like "The Serbo-Croatian-French Congressional Caucas". These groups would have about one member each, maybe two. And they would lose their collective voice in the process.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

[oinkment]

6. Interesting point

I hadn't thought of it that way. However, I'm thinking more about society's instinct to lump everyone into "white," "black," and "other," and assign status accordingly. We do make cultural distinctions between white people in this country: Irish, Italian, Polish, etc. Or more to the point, we allow white people to identify with those various cultures. There's a difference between people acknowledging a culture they hail from and a government imposing categories from above.

I'd suggest that African Americans have more in common politically with Native Americans, say, than African immigrants. I don't think that all "black" people, regardless of where they hail from, have common social or political goals, except in that the rest of society wants to lump them all together.

[Don Claybrook]

9. These coins have two sides

The Bush Administration has taught me that you can take a noble idea and use it for PR while working behind the scenes to destroy the common good and leverage the powerful over the powerless by yet another notch.

Examples:

-Healthy Forests Initiative sold as a way to cut down on forest fires. And you know the real story behind it.

-Clear Skies Initiative to help industry rape the environment.

-"Tax Relief for Working American Families"

-Faith-based initiatives so you can hug a neighbor like you like to be hugged yourself, and meantime, we'll get rid of Medicare and Social Security.

And so on. This sort of reclassification, in the hands of the evil Bushes, would be nothing but trouble.

[LeahMira]

17. What makes you think that...

Then they could form really powerful groups, like "The Serbo-Croatian-French Congressional Caucas". These groups would have about one member each, maybe two. And they would lose their collective voice in the process.

... any racial, national, religious, or other sort of group has a "collective voice?" It's only when a particular group of people is singled out for prejudice and discrimination that they have any sort of collective voice, and really only in the matter of not intending to allow prejudice and discrimination to exist against themselves.

I can't think of a group of people that has come to this country that has not had to endure that prejudice and discrimination from the "native-born Americans" ... except maybe the Pilgrims and the Jamestown settlers, who were welcomed by the genuine Native Americans. In my grandparents' time "Irish need not apply" for work and "No Papists" were welcomed in the pubs. Using their "collective voice" those groups eventually achieved equal respect and rights in the U.S. Other than on March 17th, who cares now if you're Irish-ancestry?

Unfortunately, roadblocks still exist for other groups. When those roadblocks come down, there will be no need for any "collective voice" in the political or economic arenas. Traditional festivals, dances, foods, languages, and so on will be the only sort of "collective voice" anyone might need then.

[htuttle]

7. It's an old racist idea

For a very long time, at least in the US, if you had one drop of 'non-caucasian' blood, you were defined as non-caucasian -- even today, really. Some places created various subdistinctions revolving around how MUCH non-caucasian heritage a particular person had (1/2, 1/4, etc...), but nothing good came from that that I'm aware of.

The culture that created this concept believes that non-caucasian ancestors are a 'taint', with the worst 'taint' being that of an African ancestor. The idea that 'blackness' trumps any other heritage, such as in Tiger Woods case, is all tied up in this. The best thing we can do is make this idea fade away.

As Bob Marley said, quoting Haile Sellassie:

Until the philosophy which hold one race superior
And another
Inferior
Is finally
And permanently
Discredited
And abandoned -
Everywhere is war -
Me say war.

That until there no longer
First class and second class citizens of any nation
Until the colour of a man's skin
Is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes -
Me say war.

That until the basic human rights
Are equally guaranteed to all,
Without regard to race -
Dis a war.

That until that day
The dream of lasting peace,
World citizenship
Rule of international morality
Will remain in but a fleeting illusion to be pursued,
But never attained -
Now everywhere is war - war.

[LeahMira]

10. Overcome?

How much "whiteness" does it take to overcome "blackness"?

Come on! You should know that up until the 1970s there were laws on the books of many states saying that one drop of black blood was all that was needed. Surely you don't expect that thirty years is enough time for those kinds of ideas to die out of memory. Plenty of people who are still quite alive learned about the "one drop" laws from their parents and grandparents, and what you learn early stays with you.

IMO, it's entirely up to the individual how s/he identifies. As long as there's a legitimate trace of a particular heritage, it's theirs to claim. Strom Thurmond's daughter is old enough to not have had much choice in the matter, but Tiger Woods is free to claim whichever heritage he chooses. I think, in fact, that he claims all of them.

Besides, why on earth would anyone who can claim African-American ancestry want to put that heritage in second place to their European-American ancestry? In days past, of course it was a social and economic disability, but now?

White Americans started this idea of a "melting pot." White Europeans who came here were encouraged to put away their original national identity and to assimilate, and most did quite willingly. I think they lost a lot that was worth holding on to, but that's just my opinion. Anyhow, non-white immigrants have never been particularly welcome to "melt" and besides they apparently are smart enough to realize that "white" doesn't mean "best" ... and neither does "American."

[markses]

15. Doesn't matter what he says

The idea that you can get out of a social definition by individual assertion is laughable. I know plenty of black folks who can say they aren't black - the question is whether they are *treated* as black when the racist cop pulls them over (no, I'm not saying all cops are racists, its a specifier). You can "identify" however you want; race has nothing to do with a personal essence, except in so far as this is constructed out of social experience.

On edit: Sorry, meant to reply to Tiger Woods post below.

[oinkment]

25. I'm not talking about racism per se

I don't deny that people who appear to be "black" get treated like second-class citizens much of the time. And I'm sure that saying you're not black, you're Caribbean or Maori will not endear you to a racist policeman.

I'm trying to get at the illogic of racial classification. For some reason in the US, we're very attached to the notion of "race" and all that implies. I'd rather see that concept eliminated in favor of something slightly less subjective -- like culture, religion, or class. There's a lot of lip service paid to the notion of "talking about race issues" in our society. My feeling is that we won't get anywhere as long as we keep deciding this person is black and that person is white.

[cirej2000]

16. Ya have to have 87.6% in order to overcome blackness

An octaroon or someone with 1/8 black blood was considered black in the old days.

So if ya got 12.5% or more black blood (mixed with white at least) you am BuLack!

[salin]

18. er

speechless. What is with that very last statement?

[cirej2000]

20. I was implying the racism that's associated with such an assertion

One that was very real and prevalent in the country 40 plus years ago. Shows like Amos N' Andy and the portrayal of blacks in movies during the "Golden Age" of screen.

Personally I don't even buy into the octaroon thing, but it's true. Just as the fact that blacks are traumatized not only by the fact that such things exist...but also by the fact that we try to hide or ignore such truths.

[salin]

22. my speechlessness

was not to a term that sadly has a history in this country - but to your last clause of your post (last three words).

[cirej2000]

24. Which is what I was referring to

those last three horrible words. To deny them is to be an ostrich. I'm not embracing them...in fact I condemn them. One of my best friends since high school was african-american and he used to get so angry when folks try to sugarcoat the history of pain and strife for blacks in America. I think that he'd approve.

[carolinayellowdog]

19. Passing

You ask:

Besides, why on earth would anyone who can claim African-American ancestry want to put that heritage in second place to their European-American ancestry? In days past, of course it was a social and economic disability, but now?

I reply: having found through genealogical research that at least two and possibly four Colonial era ancestors were classified mulatto, I've had a DNA test to determine the presence of African or Native American ancestry. (Results not in yet.) Part of me is thrilled by the prospect of finding some significant amount of either one, and attracted by the idea of declaring myself not to be white any more. But in fact, I've been socially white all my life, partaken of white privilege, and any mulatto ancestors who "passed" did so more than 200 years ago. So regardless of those test results, any claim to be something other than white would be kinda silly-- even though I'd be tempted. How would African Americans or Native Americans feel towards someone who claimed to be nonwhite based on 1/16 or less mulatto (hence 1/32 or less Native or African) ancestry? At some point "one drop of blood" becomes ridiculous.

CYD

[LeahMira]

28. Nothing ridiculous about it...

It's a part of who you are.

I could tell you story after story of people who found out about their heritage and suddenly realized that it explained a lot of things about who they are today.

As a practical matter, no it doesn't matter because you have already created the person you are now. But in another way I think you will find that it matters a lot.

[Isome]

43. Tiger Woods is a man of his time...

He learned early on that to be Black is to be inferior. To be white is to be superior. Since he cannot pass for white, he choose to coin a name, Cablinasian, which puts white (caucasian) first.

[Catherine Vincent]

12. Tiger Woods says he's not black.

[terrisel]

13. Black "blood" must be very potent.

One drop cancels out all other.

[Bucky]

26. Give credit where it's due. Frederick Douglass started this meme in 1850s

[shanti]

33. that's why the racists worked so hard

to keep ww away from bm. that *one* drop of black blood....*smh*

[loudnclear]

23. Yeah, but what does everyone else say?

If had lived 50 years ago and tried to eat at a lunch counter in MS he would have been denied service.

[Catherine Vincent]

31. Yes, I know. That is how a lot of blacks feel regarding Tiger.

But he insists on being called something other than black. I guess that's okay but because of the fact that he's dark doesn't change the fact. Now had he had more yellow in him, then he could get away with it more. I know a few bi-racial people (black +?) and a lot of them you can't really tell that they are 1/2 black. But with Tiger you can. He will have to face that fact.

[pnb]

37. It seems to me Tiger can define himself as he wants

As a matter of fact, it shouldn't matter to him what society thinks.

I personally don't see how anyone could be OK with accepting the definitions they get from others.

[terrisel]

14. "Southern" used as referring to "White Southerners"

Have you noticed that when people refer to someone as a "Southerner" they usually mean a person from the South who is considered to be white.

Yet the deep south states have always had such large percentages of so-called Black persons.

I think using the term "southern" in this manner implies a kind of White Right to a section of the country.

The growth of the Hispanic population in the deep South may be finally changing this.


I think you are correct in your assessment of culture and economics being more important than what is known as "race."

[WoodrowFan]

21. books on this question.

I asked for references on books from a Historian Listserv I belong to, and here are some of the books they recommended on this question..


Marvin Harris, Patterns of Race in the Americas (1966) because of its comparative reach and its theoretical sharpness.

Virginia Dominguez, _White by Definition_ - her focus is Louisiana but her argument is useful in thinking the question through for other locales as well.


Scott L. Malcolmson, One Drop of Blood: The American Misadventure of Race (2000)


George Fredrickson, _Black Image in the White Mind:The Debate on Afro-American Character and Destiny, 1817-1914_ new edition 1990, Wesleyan.


Richard Kluger, Simple Justice (1977).

Stephan Talty's Mulatto America; Randall Kennedy, Race, Crime and the Law;


Lawrence Blum, "I'm Not A Racist But..." Moral Quandary of Race;

Matthew Jacobson, Whiteness Of A different Color: European Immigration and The Alchemy Of Race;


Julius Wilson, The Declining Significance of Race and Changing America Institutions.

[playahata1]

35. Also check out this book:

THE COLOR COMPLEX, by Midge Wilson, Ronald Hall, and Kathy Russell

[DuctapeFatwa]

27. The most popular white genetic traits are recessive

Colored eyes and hair and low melanocytes tend to be recessive, which means that if one parent was anything BUT white, you have a much better chance of resembling that non-white parent than the white one, in terms of your coloring.

In Miss Essie's case, although her skin is pale, it is distinctly beige, as opposed to pink; on the other hand, Senator Thurmond was somewhat more generous with his proboscal bequest to her than to his other children.

Please note the repeated use of synonmyms of "usually" I have tried to convey; at the end of the day, the genetic lottery is like Forest Gump's box of chocolates: "You never know WHAT you gon' get!"

[Hell Hath No Fury]

I am living proof of that!

My Mom is olive skinned with black hair and almost black eyes. She used to get so dark in summer she was refused service at a lunch counter in the south because she looked "colored".

She produced three kids with fair skin, light eyes (green, hazel and grey) and one dark blonde.

Genetics is wacky sometimes...

[bobbyboucher]

29. I think the racists make the call, actually.

Duh.

[stickdog]

30. Don't tell me you're still slaving away on such a simple question. (nt)

[shanti]

32. it's the old "one-drop" rule

very racist too...

[FlaGranny]

34. Come on, folks, we're ALL black.

We are all the SAME PEOPLE who came out of Africa. Our skin and features have changed over the millenia because of the climates we migrated to. We are like cows. Some black, some red, some white, some big, some small, but still all cows. The deepest differences in people are cultural differences and those have nothing to do with skin color. The only use I really see for mentioning a person's skin color is as a descriptor to help identify that person.

[Ksec]

36. You may want to check that

Im seeing reports that would disprove that theory

[Ksec]

38. Im for equal rights but this crap worshipping the Blacks as some sort of

mythical beast whose blood is majik and is all powerful is just another form of racism IMO

[Isome]

42. Oh', you're jealous because ...

another group is getting the positive scrutiny you think is yours exclusively.

Other ethinicities are constantly assaulted with a barrage of images idealizing caucasians with blonde hair and blue eyes. Westernized culture is held up as a model for successful societies, while any other is seen as inferior and unworthy of consideration, other than for its art, or pieces of its culture that are promptly co-opted and repackaged for mass consumption. Democracy is seen and discussed as inherently "western" (read: white/caucasian) though representative forms of governing existed in countries of people of color prior to the modern form of democracy practiced today.

I can't see any "worshipping" or "racism" going on, but the green-eyed monster is definitely in the room!

[Logansquare]

39. For Sale: A DNA Test to Measure Racial Mix

This is an interesting article about attempts to quantify racial makeup:

"Dr. Shriver sees use of the test as beneficial. "The ultimate outcome is that we are breaking down a dichotomous classification," he said, meaning that instead of people being considered either black or white, his test would show a continuous spectrum of ancestry among African-Americans and others.

The spectrum of mixed ancestry continues into the European-American population, about 10 percent of whom have some African ancestry, Dr. Shriver said. He had discovered to his surprise that that included him. Probably through a Mexican grandmother, he carries the Duffy null allele, he said, a gene variant that protects against malaria and is very common in sub-Saharan Africans but rare among others."

http://www.racesci.org/in_media/raceanddna/dna_test_nyt_Oct2002.htm

[SoCalDem]

40. The "difference" is immediately obvious..

Immigrants who came to America, and were NOT black, could blend in very quickly and if they learned english and lost their accents, there was no way of telling their heritage.. Being black is not the same..They could speak the most pefect king's english, and they would still be black.. No amount of assimilation could help them "blend in"..

The fact that black people did not come willingly, makes it even more of a problem.. They did not want to be here to begin with, and then the same people who brought them here seem to blame them for even being here..

People who are not black , have the luxury of "choosing" what they want to be recognized as.. I am half cuban, but unless I TELL you that, you cannot know it..Black people can be French, but unless you hear them speaking french, they are black, and that's the only recognition they get..

my 2 cents

[oinkment]

41. SoCalDem, that's just what I'm talking about.

You're always at a disadvantage when you have some obvious, visible difference. Take obesity -- because fatness is so stigmatized, there's a tendency to view fat people as lazy, weak-willed, stupid, etc.

It requires constant self-examination to avoid making snap judgments about people based on their appearance. And we should be no different when considering skin color or facial features. One of my friends in school was a girl whose mother was Swedish and father was from Sierra Leone. She spoke Swedish at home, spent her summers in Sweden, and had a Swedish first name. This was totally understood in high school. Yet when she went to college, friends would only try to set her up with African American boys because they thought she was "black."

I guess I'm saying that we all need to work on creating an environment where everyone can say who they are without getting stuffed into some category before they open their mouths. Like a lot of social change, it has to start within.

[Astarho]

44. It is odd

Charlie Patton, one of the first bluesmen, was considered "black" even though he was a quarter white, a quarter black and half Native American.