Skip to main content

One thing that has always perplexed me about the "passing" phenomenon is that people who would outwardly appear white, live in majority white areas, and marry white spouses would still be considered Black by society if they had any identifiable quantity of Black bood. At what point do people with African ancestry stop being Black? Is it even possible? Should a self-identified "white" who is 1/32 Black and 31/32 white honestly be considered a Black who is passing, instead of a white person with a Black ancestor? When does "passing" end and actual "being" begin?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

When is a person of Black African ancestry no longer Black?---upppity

There is no confusing where it counts.

Where it counts is in the perception of Europeans, and European Americans who exercise the behavior and decisions dictated by that perception.

In short, a person is 'black' when European America says that person is 'black'.

Maybe a part of your confusion is based in 'our' reaction to that repression by embracing the terminology in the 1970s, as a descriptor.

We latched on to the term so tightly, and aggressively that the term morph into being perceive as our identity.

So...now African America has a role in deciding when a person is 'black', and...

We do it all the time.

We do not hesitate to tell someone when they are 'not black enough'.

Hopefully, and ultimately we will, become smart enough to realize and declare that 'black' is not 'who' we are, but only a descripto of 'what' we are.

As I always say...like being nearsighted, or right-handed.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
When is a person of Black African ancestry no longer Black?---upppity

There is no confusing where it counts.

Where it counts is in the perception of Europeans, and European Americans who exercise the behavior and decisions dictated by that perception.

In short, a person is 'black' when European America says that person is 'black'.

Maybe a part of your confusion is based in 'our' reaction to that repression by embracing the terminology in the 1970s, as a descriptor.

We latched on to the term so tightly, and aggressively that the term morph into being perceive as our identity.

So...now African America has a role in deciding when a person is 'black', and...

We do it all the time.

We do not hesitate to tell someone when they are 'not black enough'.

Hopefully, and ultimately we will, become smart enough to realize and declare that 'black' is not 'who' we are, but only a descripto of 'what' we are.

As I always say...like being nearsighted, or right-handed.


PEACE

Jim Chester

Jim,
When does an American of unknown African ancestry cease being an African American American?
Jim,
When does an American of unknown African ancestry cease being an African American American?---kresge

That's an intriguing extension...

and Ooops you 'forgot' the ever-important hyphen.

Anyway...

Unlike 'black', the integrity to the terminology African American-American is the creation of those who are identified by the term.

Those persons are who they say they are...and so therefore are their children.

No one else has authority over the ethnicity, the identity of us as a people.

It might be well to note that our existence, our identity, as a self-defined people takes nothing from anyone else.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
Jim,
When does an American of unknown African ancestry cease being an African American American?---kresge

That's an intriguing extension...

and Ooops you 'forgot' the ever-important hyphen.

Anyway...

Unlike 'black', the integrity to the terminology African American-American is the creation of those who are identified by the term.

Those persons are who they say they are...and so therefore are their children.

No one else has authority over the ethnicity, the identity of us as a people.

It might be well to note that our existence, our identity, as a self-defined people takes nothing from anyone else.


PEACE

Jim Chester

So it is subjectively accepted or rejected by an individual 'adult' and they are the sole arbiter of its appropriateness?
So it is subjectively accepted or rejected by an individual 'adult' and they are the sole arbiter of its appropriateness?---kresge

Of course, adult or of less than the age of majority.

How else?

Who else?

Both appropriateness, and validity.

Not to say there won't challenges.

Weak rationale is likely to fail challenge, but...

Everyone is challenged...sooner or later.

Who is to say a person is Nigerian, but a Nigerian, or a Kenyan a Kenyan, etc.

The only ethnicity we challenge is our own.


PEACE

Jim Chester
In college, I knew a white girl who had no problem freely acknowledging that there was "most likely" some black blood in her family's past. But even though she and her family acknowledged this, these were considered white people. There absolutely comes a point where it really is a little silly to deem a clearly white person "black" because one of their 32 great-great-great grandparents was 1/8th black.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
In college, I knew a white girl who had no problem freely admitting that there was "most likely" some black blood in her family's past. But even though she and her family acknowledged this, these were considered white people. There absolutely comes a point where it really is a little silly to deem a clearly white person "black" because one of their 32 great-great-great grandparents was 1/8th black.


I agree.

African American Ethnicity, however, enables such a person to Identify that relationship in the same manner as he/she would/can every other part of her identity.

Without the color-construction that otherwise binds us.

'black' conveys no identity...at all...

And often fails even as a descriptor.

It is simply societally repressive as intended.


PEACE

Jim Chester
JWC, it seems to me that if we're talking ethnicity as opposed to race, then she's even less African-American than she is black. After all, even if she's only 1/132 black, that's still at least somewhat so, even though it's "virtually" nil. But if she's got virtually no African-American blood at al, AND she has no connection whatsoever to us culturally, then she's not "African American" in the slightest.

I understand what you're saying about ethnicity (hell, I thought I practically invented the idea before I ever saw you on the 'net!), but I think Uppity's question relates more to purely racial aspects rather than ethnicity. Maybe you're saying that she's asking "the wrong question," but whichever question you want to tackle, it seems to me that they are in fact two different questions.
Vox: I agree.

I 'latched onto' and ran with the 'African ancestry' part of it.

There is an intertwining of concepts.

Maybe this is part the problem being experienced by Uppitynegress, i.e. the vacillating definition of 'black'.

From a genetic point of view '1/32' was that law, and was completely about race.

'The Law' said with 1/32 the person is 'black'...notwithstanding the other 31/32 being 'white'.

Taking away the law takes away the race standard.

Now the person is whoever, and whatever he/she declares.

You are the product of your ancestry.

You either accept it, or reject it, or ignore it.

Trying to answer Uppitynegress' question directly: You are who you are when declare who you are.

I have a grandson who declares he is 'Italian'.

How he explains his father, grandmother and grandfather is entirely up to him.

By the way, I wasn't challenging your perception, or application of ethnicity.

I think this thread underlines my contention that 'black' has no uniqueness...and, in fact,

Denies achieving identity for us as a people until we assign it its proper role as simply a descriptor.

PEACE

Jim Chester
I don't know, I suppose it all depends on the country.In some parts of the West Indies people follow some of the American ways of classifing a person and choosing their ethnic group.From what I've seen it probably ends a 1/4 black. If that person has a black grandparent then they would more than likely still have some connection to that culture so they are more easily accepted into it. With the british influence sometimes its different because their beliefs are that a mixed race person is another thing altogether know matter their cultural connections. The Spanish influence is somewhat the same even though most still share the same culture no matter their race or ethnic group but the majority of latin countries still have complex race systems.

America doesn't have the one drop rule anymore so some people have chosen to celebrate both cultures/races which can cause problems for those who have become accustomed to the practice and those who want to get rid of it. People who followed the ODR outside of America are also having trouble because the people with new identities mean some communities are now getting smaller.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
A person who is only 1/4 is not Black IMHO. Just like a person who is only 1/4 White is not White.

I don't follow the pseudo-scientific, racist 'One Drop Rule' invented by the Spaniards.



Thats kinda of what I mean(excuse my english)but some people are no longer following the One Drop Rule while some still are.I guess it depends on the country and situation.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
A person who is only 1/4 is not Black IMHO. Just like a person who is only 1/4 White is not White.

I don't follow the pseudo-scientific, racist 'One Drop Rule' invented by the Spaniards.---Empty Purnata


Thats kinda of what I mean(excuse my english)but some people are no longer following the One Drop Rule while some still are.I guess it depends on the country and situation.---cypress

Now that is an illustration of confusion when the listener can conclude that the declaration of another person is not valid solely on the conclusion of the listener.

I just now am returning from listening to a presentation of the history a family that participated in The Underground Railroad in Northeast Pennsylvania.

Members of the family fought with George Washington at Valley Forge, and in other battles of The Revolutionary War (in New England, notably Connecticut) earlier.

They were free men.

They were voting in Pennsylvania when the Pennsylvania Constitution was written taking away from (men) of African ancestry the right to vote.

These were men who had fought, and bled
at the side of General George Washington, to achieve that right years earlier in The Revolutionary War.

Here are men of unknown African ancestry who are free fighting to be free as yet to be Americans.

How can they NOT be Americans who are African American???

The only thing 'black' has done for us, as a people, is to take away the power of the word from the control of Europeans.

That, in and of itself, is empowerment, but...

It is not identity.

Our power lies in our ethnicity as Americans who are African American.

The rest has to be recognized for what it is...

Confusion.


PEACE

Jim Chester

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×