Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
_AND?_ What point are you making here?

Also - obviously he "looked" black or else the conductor would not have asked him to leave the white section. Since many fair blacks of that day "passed", it looks like he just got busted.

Still - I understand generally where you're coming from, but what are your conclusions? What's your point here? smile


Onward and Upward!


I have to say MBM, I like the way you treat people whom you disagree with!!! You are respectful and I respect your opinions!!

Plessy did NOT look black as the introduction into the case states:

That petitioner was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the state of Louisiana, of mixed descent, in the proportion of seven-e ghths Caucasian and one-eighth African blood; that the mixture of colored blood was not discernible in him, and that he was entitled to every recognition, right, privilege, and immunity secured to the citizens of the United States of the white race by its constitution and laws;

WHat happened he was recognized as a KNOWN coloured man. If someone was KNOWN to be "black" the onus was on you to prove OTHERWISE.

But I ask you MBM, what is a "black" look?? To me it's someone with an African phenotype. To me, you do not look black. With people that are mixed, it'a all about how you were taught to PERCEIVE. More later on that. How is it that BET does not use "black" women in that they are not dark skinned with African features. Most of the women on BET, Ebony, Essence are rather brown skinned women with more Caucasian features. My whole perception has changed from the way I thought 20 years ago!!!

More later......
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
Re: defining one's ethnicity, you are obviously completely free to define yourself in whatever manner that makes you happy. On the other hand, you cannot force society to necessarily go along with you. Biology is only relevant to the degree that it shapes one's appearance. So, one may be 1/100000000000000 black, but if they look black, society will label them as such. Now, becuase being black has all sorts of consequences in this society I can clearly understand how one might not want to embrance this "label". Nevertheless - if you look black, you're black. smile



Well MBM, what do you mean when you say society, American society, or global society?? I take it you mean American society. Well this is from F. James Davis' book Who is Black??

Not only does the one-drop rule apply to no other group than American blacks, but apparently the rule is unique in that it is found only in the United States and not in any other nation in the world. In fact, definitions of who is black vary quite sharply from country to country, and for this reason people in other countries often express consternation about our definition. James Baldwin relates a revealing incident that occurred in 1956 at the Conference of Negro-African Writers and Artists held in Paris. The head of the delegation of writers and artists from the United States was John Davis. The French chairperson introduced Davis and then asked him why he considered himself Negro, since he certainly did not look like one. Baldwin wrote, "He is a Negro, of course, from the remarkable legal point of view which obtains in the United States, but more importantly, as he tried to make clear to his interlocutor, he was a Negro by choice and by depth of involvement--by experience, in fact."


Yes that's right!!! Black people here are used to using the American definition of who is black to pertain to people who may not be in other countries!!!

My mothers mother was from Panama. In Panama, they were not considered black. Her maternal grandmother she said was a dark black woman, her maternal grandfather was Scottish. Her paternal grandfather was an Irish Catholic, she never said much about her paternal grandmother. I have a picture of her mother and she looks Phillipino, at least in my opinion. In a good part of Latin America, you're black if 100% African, white if you're 100% European. Anything else is mulatto or mestizo.

My youngest brother is the darkest out of all of us. He has straight hair. He works in Maryland. Whites on his job (remember MD was a border state) cannot believe it when he tells them he is black. He has actually been told by whites that he is "passing for black!!! Believe it or not!!!

Earlier this year I had an office mate from Bangladesh who is Muslim. What was the first question he asked me after meeting me?? "What are you??" Then he asked why people like me identify ourselves as black. So MBM, it is all about how you are taught to perceive. I can go on and on about how I have been perceived as something else, even by American whites. What has changed is that 20 years ago there was no question in how American whites perceived me. Though the vast majority still perceive me as black, the have been many occasions where they were not sure. And I'm not that light either, though not dark.

Peoples perceptions are changing!!! The perception of race is not set in concrete the way most people in Amercia have been brought up to believe. Actually the perception of race is a relatively new concept in human history!!!

I just find it quite amazing that something that can be used to bring people together is rejected by groups who claim that their objective is to bring people together!!!

I apreciate MBM, that you have not resulted to name calling and insults. This is what happens on the other forum....I guess that's why I keep going back there!!

wink
quote:
Originally posted by IndependentMan:

I like the way you treat people whom you disagree with!!!


Thanks, but here I don't necessarily have an opinion (yet) either way. I'm just honestly trying to understand your thinking, and sharing my thoughts as well. And in any event, I certainly respect the right of someone to characterize themselves in whatever way that makes sense to them.

quote:
Plessy did NOT look black as the introduction into the case states


Gotcha. In any event, as being black or white or purple is a largely subjective characterization, there would seem to be little logic or science involved in that determination. While most of the time one's looks define one's race, there could be other ways - like knowing the person's lineage, that could offer evidence to one's identity as well. My great grandfather looked "whiter" than Colonel Sanders. Despite that he was as black as coal, and everyone knew that.

quote:
But I ask you MBM, what is a "black" look??


I respectfully think we're just dealing in semantics here. Again - this is an entirely subjective phenomenon. I sense your concern is with the very subjectiveness of this, and the fact that sometimes (because of the dominance of black genes) just "a drop" can have a dominating effect on your appearance. One may have mostly white recent ancestors, but appear to be black, and thus be characterized as such. No?

quote:
With people that are mixed, it'a all about how you were taught to _PERCEIVE_.


In my opinion, how an individual is taught to think of themselves can absolutely influence their personal sense of identity. How society perceives you determines your identity to the rest of the world though. These societal definitions and conceptions of race take generations to change.

quote:
How is it that BET does not use "black" women in that they are not dark skinned with African features.


Again, your definition of "black" is overly narrow. You realize, of course, that there are Africans with "pure" bloodlines that are fair skinned and without what most people would describe as "Negroid" features.

If your over-all look (determined by a blend of skin color and features etc.) is derived from Africa as opposed to elsewhere, then you'll most likely be considered black - without regard to the concentration of those African genes in your blood.

P.S. I'm adding this re: your last post. This reminds me of Richard Pryor in the Bingo Long movie when playing baseball in the deep South he told someone that he was Cuban, not black! smile

There is black the color, and black the ethnicity - i.e. African American. Both are interchanged freely. Most of the times the two are linked, sometimes not.

Colin Powell's parents are black, but until they moved here they weren't African American.

Look - people like to put everything in a box. What is Pepsi? It's like Coke. What is Lowe's? It's like Home Depot. The same is true for racial identity. Sometimes people make mistakes based upon incomplete information. People can choose to identify with whatever racial or cultural identity that makes them feel good about themselves. If they choose to swim upstream, the onus is on them to continue to define themselves with the world.



Onward and Upward!

[This message was edited by MBM on September 17, 2002 at 09:02 AM.]
Actually MBM, Colin Powell got into trouble once by saying, "I'm not that black!!!" A geneologist concluded that Colin Powell was a distint relative of Princess Diana........He considers himself "African American" because of political correctness.

Here's an interesting article from Interracial Voice:

Does "Black" mean the same thing as Multiracial?
By George Winkel


Often "black"-identified posters to Interracial Voice disparage interracial marriage; and they vilify our racially mixed progeny who proudly identify as "mixed," biracial, or multiracial. Ironically, the most virulent of critics more often than not are of multiracial heritage, themselves. The caustic observations I have set out below synthesize a post by a typical such racial "admixture"-denying "One Dropper":


1- Black means multiracial. New identifiers, like "bi-racial" and "multi-racial," are just silly. And worse, they are divisive -- and disloyal -- being a step toward passing for white. (Which act is moral betrayal!)
2- I identify "black," and I refuse to identify myself with terms such as "bi-racial," or "multi-racial."

3- What is "monoracial"? Isn't this non-word intended to belittle the "fully" black people not privileged to have a white mom (or dad?), and thus be "bi-racial"? (Closer to white?)

4- Should you succeed in gaining recognition as a new "in between race," won't your "closer to white" social place in the U.S.A.'s top-down race pecking order come at the expense of your own black family -- the "monracial" ones? You seek white favoritism by standing on the heads of black people -- the folks at the bottom (as always).

5- You need to know it is impossible to have a black parent and not be black! (Impossible, that is, without the shocking disloyalty of joining the whites -- by committing the guilt-ridden, dangerous act of passing for white.) Whites will never allow your "bi-racial" child to be anything but black! Don't you know about their "one-drop-of black blood makes you black" edict? Whites proud of their pure white ancestry always put us down by their One-Drop Rule.

6- It has always been so. One drop of African "black" in your family tree and you are African American! Black people can be any color. Look at Gregory Howard Williams, for one. He appears to be a very white white man -- living proof that we African Americans are the rainbow race.

7- Moreover, your flaunting your "mixture" resurrects the ugly mythical "biology" of race. Race is only a social construct. There are no biological races to "mix." How can you "mix" what is an abstraction? Your "multiracial" identifiers only resurrect this monstrous "race biology" as your "new race." Also you create divisiveness in our oppressed racial minority -- a community needing to unite collectively and resist the institutional white racism always directed against us.

8- "Bi-racial," "multi-racial," amounts to nothing but running from your blackness. And it is disloyal, too!

9- You're black! Get over it!


It is important to know that these criticisms -- familiar ones to self-identified multiracial peoples -- are full of fallacies, misrepresentations.
As the hypothetical dropper poster above says, "black" certainly is multiracial. Historically, "blood" from all of the "races" became "mixed" in with the abused "black" population. It is said that approximately a fifth of African American genetic heritage is "white" -- that much of it entered during the two centuries that "white" men owned slaves who were female (and of African descent).

But regardless of its being genetically multiracial, when did "Black" ever attack the "race" notion, pointing to how accepting "mixing" contradicts the myth that separate "races" even exist?

Does "Black" represent multiracial? No! Did "Black" ever stand for anything but "a black monorace"? Never! For that matter, when did vocal "back" adherence typical of the above to the so-called "one-drop of black blood rule" (the defunct Jim Crow laws against "passing" for "white"), not actively try to prevent anyone "black" from being anything more than "black monorace" -- just as we so often see being pushed this way here?

The central theme in the whole "one drop black" message above is the nationalistic whisper, "us against them." The poster concludes arguing the need to unite collectively against historically oppressive, ubiquitous "white" racism, characterized as "institutional." However, truly institutional racism has not existed since the 1960's. The last Jim Crow laws were abolished then. Racism appears indirectly now -- as various statistical social inequalities -- the new meaning of "institutional racism"? Whatever causes the persistent inequality, it needs "races," apparently, so as to statistically match them up for multicultural-style comparison searching for "racial inequalities." Would human inequalities be undetectable without knowing everyone's "race"?

I think an element of "black" nationalism drives "minority" "race" identity politics now, which is relatively new historically. I have seen the evidence of this new "black" nationalism in the Black Power/Panther movement, which arose in the mid-1960's, and flourished in the 1970's. I have seen more evidence in the newer "re-Africanization" movement, which inspired the new moniker, "African American." It replaced the newly dignified "Black" (circa 1960). So it was, in the 1970's-1980's that many "blacks" rejected their "slave names." They took African names. And many rejected Christianity, the religion of their American ancestors, and adopted Islam. Invention of the artificial Kwanzaa celebrations, and other cultural novelties came out of this movement for "re-Africanization," too.

There was something more going on behind the last three decades of rejecting our shared "white," European cultural heritage -- I'm convinced -- than merely the exuberance of "black" Americans' celebrating their new civil rights, since the 1960's.

The decennial census is in Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The census plays a central role in our democratic government. The census "enumerates" Americans into voting districts for the various states. State governments use the same census data creating their own, smaller, more numerous political subdivisions, too. In Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960), the U.S. Supreme court forbade "white" politicians to continue as they had long done, deliberately "gerrymandering" "white" voting district lines so as to fragment "black" communities -- effectively preventing "black" voters together electing "black" congressmen. I believe this upholding of the Constituion's Fifteenth Amendment was squarely in line with the civil rights movement. Gomillion, together with the 1965 voting rights act, changed "black" (a name with derogatory connotation before 1960) into a political community with growing power.

This was because the Gomillion v. Lightfoot Court, and others following it did not forbid "blacks" and "minorities" from using the "race" data in the census in a "gerrymandering" sort of way, consolidating their communities into "majority minority" voting districts. In fact, for 33 years the Court encouraged "majority minority" districting, with a "65-percent rule," expressly aimed at concentrating "minorities" into political districts of "their kind." Clearly, the U.S. Supreme Court -- all branches of Government, in fact -- went on the assumption that "race" was an immutable, actual division of human biology. Today the prevailing notion of American egalitarianism still recognizes the "different races" need fair political representation, sensitive to "their" unique racial identity and needs.

If pets and farm animals developed language, and agitated for political self-determination, too, it is hard to see how the model for their "empowerment" would differ one whit from our present U.S.A. devotion to "minority" political representation and multicultural "empowerment." In short, "race" is being treated as "species." "Race" is only an abstraction, purporting to be the non-existent "subspecies" of mankind. In fact, "race" has no actual, natural meaning. None whatsoever. "Race" purports to segment our natural human racial somatic variation arbitrarily. The fact our somatic variation is racial in nature does not mean that we subdivide into any "subspecies" or "races."

All human beings are the same species Homo sapiens. There is no rational basis whatsoever for subdividing us into any number of "subspecies" or "races." There is no socially redeeming purpose whatsoever for designating any "race" but one -- the Human Race. Impressing arbitrary, abstract "race-lines" for "race" categories upon the human genetic biome's seamless continuum has no purpose but falsely implying "species differences."

Species are different life forms by definition. And being mutually exclusive, species are different from one another (by definition), such that they cannot be "equal." "Race" (which invokes "subspecies") applied to human beings, only sets up the popular confusion with "species." Species by definition cannot be equal. The mere existence of "race"-consciousness imposes a top-down social caste hierarchy on our society, which by no accident is quite analogous to the inequality of animal species. A review of the history of "race" in America (recent history, at that), shows that the confusion of the Negro supposed "black race" with lower animal species is absolutely not any historical coincidence.

In 1787 the United States Constitution was written, emphasizing that there shall be no "bill of attainder" (i.e., legislated punishment of blood-kindred family or named group), and no inequality of social rank by inherited class, as "titles of nobility." (U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 3, Art III, § 3, cl. 2.) (Sadly, the same Constitution authorized interstate pursuit of runaway slaves, and it counted the "black" slaves as only 3/5 human.) (Id., at Art. I, § 2, cl. 3) The formal naming of "race" along with Blumenbach's five sub-specific "races" came out in his book published in 1775. "Race" seemed to be new "science" when the Constitution was written, as when the 19th century began.

The 19th century was filled with misconception by the public, leading figures such as Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, and many influential doctors -- and even by scientists of the time -- believing that Negroes were a different (lower) animal species from "white" European Caucasians. In 1865 ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution ordered the total abolition of slavery in all its forms. Supreme Court decisions soon ruled that the sweeping Thirteenth Amendment also bans all the "badges of slavery or servitude," too. Antebellum slavery depended for its definition of who was slave on there being some sub-Saharan African, Negro ancestry ("drop of blood"). This linkage clearly makes "race" itself a "badge of slavery." Moreover, the linkage modernly applied defining "races" by ancestral "blood" makes any right or entitlement contingent on "race" inevitably impact reproductive liberty. Ancestral "race" either impacts one's own rights directly, or through impacting the rights of one's children, derivatively impairs the freedom to marry established by the Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court decision. Until "race" is absolutely, totally removed from Government's ken the Constitution's guarantees that there shall be no "bill of attainder," no inherited titles of nobility (or "ignobleity"), and no more "badges" of slavery or servitude, will continue being mere hollow promises.

As to census enumerating, finally, in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), the Supreme Court decided "race" could no longer be "the predominant factor" in drawing electoral districts. However, the Court continues still to allow "race" to be a significant districting factor. This is not enough to derail or slow the vigorous engine of "black" and "minority" political "empowerment" which has been accelerating for more than 30 years on the high octane fuel of "race." "Majority-minority" style "empowerment" of the so-called racial "minorities" in the country has encouraged "race"-conscious politics. Election of powerful people to high political office based more or less on their "race" or their constituents' "race," instead of their election and holding of the office based exclusively on shared humanity and citizenship, has created Frankenstein political monstrosities possessed of balkanizing will to live and grow. In furtherance of this, the Office of Management and Budget, enumerating the latest census, insists on counting each "race" as being "mutually exclusive and exhaustive." Clearly, the census -- delegating future political power in the Nation -- still treats Americans' "races" as if they identify "different" animal species. (Species are not "equal." "Species" means "different," and it does not, cannot mean "equal.")

I believe this spreading influence for "us against them" racial separatism is what underlies "One Droppers'" seeming fanatical allegiance to "their black race." The same inspires their hatred of the multiracial identifiers, which not only signify people pulling away from lock-step with the "black" political collective. The multiracial identifiers threaten the fragile "race" illusion itself, that being all that "race" is.

"Race" is an abstract, and frankly defamatory false notion. It falsely alleges non-existent mutual exclusivity (i.e., conjuring up illusory social "species"). The vast majority of "white" people don't understand this, however. They feel intuitively that they can "see" the "races."

"All but a few persons take it completely for granted that scientists have established the 'facts' about 'race' and that they have long ago recognized and classified the 'races' of mankind. Scientists do little to discourage this view, and indeed many of them are quite as deluded as most laymen are .... It is not difficult to see, therefore, why most of us continue to believe that 'race' really corresponds to something which exists."
(Ashley Montagu, Mankind's Most Dangerous Myth, 1942.)
"Now note, Dr. Ashey Montagu did not say that physical differences do not exist, because obviously they do. We can all see them. What he did say is that 'race' is a classification of human beings, and that it is imposed by theorizers of one sort or another as a way of looking at these differences. 'Race' does not exist as anything except an ideal classification of empirical biological differences. Race is, in short, not part of the data, but it is [merely] a way of looking at the data."
(Paul Bohannan, Social Anthropology, 1963, p. 186, quoting Montagu, above; original italics, my bold & brackets.)
Probably most "blacks" and "One Droppers" comprehend that they are not any sort of biologically "separate subspecies" from the "white" Americans. But such is "race" politics today that "blacks" embrace the notion of their own "minority race." "Black" activists, instead of challenging the bogus and intrinsically defamatory "race" notion, will campaign to keep "race" and government "race" surveillance, in order to monitor racism and administer various "race"-based laws. They defend "race," and they defend their abandoning the 1960's era civil rights agenda of integration. They explain that "race," while not "biological," nonetheless is a social reality of our times. They claim that "race's" social reality now is built on "white privilege," racism, the historical victimization of "minorities," and on statistically demonstrable social inequalities. In short, "race" identifies, for them, not biological but sociological divisions, which are in the nature of ethnicities. "Equality" of these proxy "ethnicities" is what they say they strive for, and they deem deconstructing "race" premature so long as evidence of prejudice or inequality remains.

"Race" is so evil that society needs "race" to be deconstructed, whether or not anything else is repaired. Even if getting rid of "race" will not cure all ills, isn't it a start? It can be done. Why wait?

At "black" or organized "minority" insistence the U.S. census still counts "races" as being "mutually exclusive and exhaustive." This can only make sense implying that "race" means something like biological "species," which, by definition, are unable viably to cross-breed. Species are essentially mutually exclusive. It is false, defamatory pseudo-science for "race" to imply "species" -- or imply that people should not marry interracially because their children will be somehow unable to synthesize two "races." "Race" and its new proxy for "ethnicity," remains bogus science. And calling it "sociological division" only transplants the bogus science in bad sociology.

If "race" is sociological division, as "black" activists will argue, then when was "race" not the same mere social tribalism -- the same ethnic complexion chauvinism they foster now? Southern segregationists, such as Orval E. Faubus and George Wallace made clear their belief that immutable "differences" define "race" biologically. But their belief could not create biological truth. Never were there any "biological divisions," regardless of any white supremacist's belief. The Marxist-influenced "black" nationalist multiculturalism promoted today as "ethnicity" is proxy for the same "races." At the end of the day this is the same ethnic complexion chauvinism as the KKK Grand Dragon's supposed "biological" "races."

"Race" has no place in government or law. However "race" arose from bad government and law. "Race" is a socially constructed abstraction which cannot be defined scientifically. Science today must share accomplice liability for the consequences of recklessly encouraging public belief that "race" was scientifically meaningful.

Certainly, "white" people invented "race," and "one-drop," too, as part of their unconscionable shoving their notion of their claimed "white supremacy" down everyone else's throat, so to speak. "White" people, with their Jim Crow intolerance forced "black" people to accept "one-drop," and forget their multiracial heritage -- just accept being "black." That is history.

But why did "whites" create and impose the post-bellum "one-drop rule" if it was not their attempt to save the illusion of mutually exclusive "races" by denying "mixing"? (Aren't "Droppers" in the same denial now?)


The hypothetical poster's argument relies ultimately on "white" prejudice, or racism. The poster invokes the "one drop rule" as the mechanism and the proof of "white" racism.

Such an advocate of "black" would point out to me, no doubt, that not all racial prejudice ended with the civil rights triumphs of the 1960's. Multiculturalism's intelligencia produces tons of statistics and studies showing "black" income and lifestyle still lags behind "white"? People with advanced degrees earn livings teaching and researching, showing that all of the human evils, bias, and racial prejudice remain in evidence.

Nonetheless, it is clear that the claimed culpability of "white" prejudice is too broad. Prejudice, xenophobia, bias, favoritism, meanness -- all the things that could be loosely characterized as racism -- I am sure these are inseparably part of Mankind's being. These weaknesses and sins we have always had. They are part of us -- part of our species, going back to our Hominid evolution, maybe millions of years ago.

I argue that the civil rights establishment Left is wrong to put off deconstructing "race" until all these normal, intrinsic human weaknesses are "sensitivity"-trained out of all school children, and out of all the adults. It will never happen. (This is a ruse, frankly, for keeping Affirmative Action and all the civil rights "equalizing" administration forever. This ruse is for the eternal career security of Leftism; and endless growth of Leftist "minority" civil rights lawyers, University professors of "diversity," and "diverse" "anti-white" "caucuses" of growing "minority" political alignment.)

One Drop "black" activists argue that the movement for "black empowerment" needs all its troop-strength. It is far too early, I'm told, to let "black" people break ranks, choose their own "race" -- or worse, yet -- embrace a multiracial identity, one denying that there are any "races."

But in fact, isn't all the "black race"-mobilization aimed at fighting "white" institutional racism which vanished entirely more than 34 years ago? Prejudice today absolutely lacks the legal importance it had prior to 1964 (Civil Rights Act). So what if some social prejudice can be found? Can "white" attitudes nowadays really check anyone's career ambition? At most, "white" racism, prejudice, even "profiling" now is an annoyance. Without the legal force it once had more than 34 years ago how can mere social prejudice block anyone's earnest goals? African American deficiencies since the 1960's must trace to some other explanation -- might it possibly be a legacy of clinging to their "monoracial" "black race"?

And exactly what "white" solidarity do "blacks" confront now in the wake of the 1960's? It is important to understand the purpose of the former Jim Crow segregation laws. The "anti-miscegenation" laws were the central part of Jim Crow. That whole ugly system was meant to try and save the "white race" from gradual "amalgamation." Racial myths, which once were laws, proclaimed white supremacy based on the supposed "purity" of "white" people's "blood." The "one-drop rule" first defined "white" as meaning racially "pure." (Loving, supra, fn. 4 on p. 5.) Jim Crow segregation was an effort to hold back the historical tide -- "white" authorities enacting Jim Crow legislation knew that "amalgamation" results inevitably from mere continued interracial contacts. What did "white" Americans say of their own racial definition by alleged "purity," then, when the "white" Congress overturned all Jim Crow segregation laws in 1964-1965? What did "whites" say of their own racial "pure blood" existence, then, when the "white" Supreme Court overturned the "one-drop" rule, and all the "anti-miscegenation" laws in 1967? By these moves, American "whites" started deconstructing their own "race" (and derivatively all of "race"). Hasn't "white" meant "multiracial" too, the same as "black," now the past more than 34 years?

What do the terms, "multiracial or biracial" mean now if they don't state the obvious fact -- that "black" and "white" don't exist as "races" anymore?

George Winkel



--------------------------------------------------
Biography: I practice appellate defense law in the California Fourth Appellate District, the State Supreme Court, and occasionally before the U.S. Ninth Circuit.
I just got back to the board after being gone all morning and as yet have not read through all of your post. With all due respect though, can you please tell me to what end this voluminous amount of information is for? What is your point? I and others have agreed that you can choose to identify yourself in any way that you like. If you don't want to be considered black, that's cool! Nobody is forcing you! smile If you have concerns about how society classifies you, this is probably not the best place to take that argument up. Go on over to whiteamerica.org for that debate! smile

I don't mean to be a smart ass, I'm just lost in all of the articles etc. I'd really love to know, point blank, what your bottom line is on this. I don't want to guess. I'd like for you to tell me. smile Is it that because of race mixing that none of us are really black? confused Is it that you have the clear picture about race in America and we are all deluded about our identity? Is it that we are all Americans so we should naturally de-emphasize our "blackness"? Is it that becuase of our mixed heritage we should all have the right to choose how we identify ourselves? Is it that "bi-racial" or "mixed race" should be considered a unique racial characterization, engendering greater respect than it does?

Please just lay out what YOU think about all of this! smile


Onward and Upward!

[This message was edited by MBM on September 17, 2002 at 02:40 PM.]
I agree with MBM. While my post got buried way back up this thread, Independent, you saw the same post on another website and you said then that you agreed with me. So how come we're getting inundated with all these hefty volumes that appear to disagree with what I argued?

I guess the answer to that question will be the answer to MBM's question about what your point is.
especially since it's white america, not "black" america who has historically rejected people of color from their social circles based on silly notions such as 1/16 "blood".

Black people have long embraced all sorts of people just because they said they were black...not because white people told them they weren't white.

If you have a problem with these classifications why not reform white people, excuse me, pure white people?
who to vote for
what black community organizations to join
what black issues should be voiced
what is happening to black students in my town
what will bring jobs for black people
what will impact black folks financially

I never consider whether they are 7/8 black, 1/16 irish or whatever.

Why should I divide brothas and sistas into 16ths if the goal is unity?
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
I just got back to the board after being gone all morning and as yet have not read through all of your post. With all due respect though, can you please tell me to what end this voluminous amount of information is for? What is your point? I and others have agreed that you can choose to identify yourself in any way that you like. If you don't want to be considered black, that's cool! Nobody is forcing you! smile If you have concerns about how society classifies you, this is probably not the best place to take that argument up. Go on over to whiteamerica.org for that debate! smile

I don't mean to be a smart ass, I'm just lost in all of the articles etc. I'd really love to know, point blank, what your bottom line is on this. I don't want to guess. I'd like for you to tell me. smile Is it that because of race mixing that _none_ of us are really black? confused Is it that you have the clear picture about race in America and we are all deluded about our identity? Is it that we are all Americans so we should naturally de-emphasize our "blackness"? Is it that becuase of our mixed heritage we should all have the right to choose how we identify ourselves? Is it that "bi-racial" or "mixed race" should be considered a unique racial characterization, engendering greater respect than it does?

Please just lay out what YOU think about all of this! smile


Onward and Upward!

[This message was edited by MBM on September 17, 2002 at 02:40 PM.]


OK, I suppose it's time to end this thread since I'm sure it's pissed many people off!!!

The answers to your all your questions MBM, YES. I do not deny that there exists a black identity. As a matter of fact, I think the black identity has contributed significantly to American culture, specifically in music.....blues, jazz, rock n roll, soul, funk. F that RAP crap!!! People like me do not deny out African heritage either. We are proud of it...it's part of what makes us who we are!!! But it's only a part. That's where I am coming from.

No bi-racial or mixed race is not meant to generate greater respect, it is meant because bottom line, it's the truth.

The de-emphasize "blackness" question: I think that in America you are free to be anything you want...if you want to be Afrocentric, that's cool. But as America becomes more diverse, I think it would be in the best interests of blacks to somewhat de-emphasize "blackness". The reason being is that the emphasis on "blackness" says to people, "I am different from you". It turns many people off...quite like my long posts!!! LOL!! Of course you have whites and others like this, but in the minds of many Asians, "Hispanics" that I know, they mention this to me that a lot of blacks they encounter have this attitude. Contrary to popular thought amongst many blacks is that though many of these people see themselves not as white, but they do not see themselves as "people of colour" either. So if we are all living in the same place, we should do things to come together, not apart. This is what the multi race movement is all about and it seems the biggest detractors are left wing black civil rights groups who contend that their objective is to bring people together.

I bow out gracefully!!!!

wink
quote:
Originally posted by IndependentMan:
OK, I suppose it's time to end this thread since I'm sure it's pissed many people off!!!


I don't think you've pissed anyone off. I think your strategy of overwhelming us with "stuff" was just . . . well, overwhelming. smile We're much more interested in your thoughts and feelings on this matter. Nevertheless, its an interesting dialogue.

quote:
But as America becomes more diverse, I think it would be in the best interests of blacks to somewhat de-emphasize "blackness". The reason being is that the emphasis on "blackness" says to people, "I am different from you".


Our skin delivers the message that we are different. Even if we wanted to, we couldn't pretend otherwise. Instead of black people de-emphasizing their heritage, why doesn't white America lessen its racism? Why is "different" a bad thing?

quote:
Of course you have whites and others like this, but in the minds of many Asians, "Hispanics" that I know, they mention this to me that a lot of blacks they encounter have this attitude. Contrary to popular thought amongst many blacks is that though many of these people see themselves not as white, but they do not see themselves as "people of colour" either.


There is a joke that the first English that a newly arrived immigrant learns in "nigger". It doesn't suprise me that immigrants want to "bleach" themselves culturally.

quote:
So if we are all living in the same place, we should do things to come together, not apart.


Agree. If white America eliminated its racism and was able to look at people that are different as equals then we'd be a lot farther along.

quote:
This is what the multi race movement is all about and it seems the biggest detractors are left wing black civil rights groups who contend that their objective is to bring people together.


The premise of your argument really is that white people are racist and they will continue to be so. Therefore, to create harmony, everybody that is different in any way must drop any connection to their real identity and "blend" in to the greatest degree that they can. They should try to be as "white" as they can. Under no circumstances can I live with this. Why is this considered "left wing"? Isn't it more reasonable to ask more of white America? It is immoral and illegal to be racist. Why not demand that white America accept you for who you are - whatever that may be?


quote:
I bow out gracefully!!!!


Not so fast there!! wink


Onward and Upward!
big grin
I have to differ with you on your take on many Hispanics....

quote:
Of course you have whites and others like this, but in the minds of many Asians, "Hispanics" that I know, they mention this to me that a lot of blacks they encounter have this attitude. Contrary to popular thought amongst many blacks is that though many of these people see themselves not as white, but they do not see themselves as "people of color" either.


We happen to know many Hispanics too, my wife and daughter speak fluent Spanish, and I have 2 brother in-laws married to Hispanic\Mexican women. We have witness prejudice against black skin among Hispanics. Many Hispanics admire white skin and look down on black skin, many of them are concerned about the color of their skin especially if they consider themselves "Spaniard", many Hispanics are very proud of their white\Spaniard heritage. Some try to keep pure Spaniard blood. They are delighted if they have blue or green eyes and men look at lighter skinned Hispanic women as more beautiful. They don't like nappy hair. And so-called Spaniards in Mexico have privilege, skin color is important for many of them. Many Hispanics try to look white, if you check Hispanic TV especially in Mexico, you'll see many blonde women and cast who look white. You hardly see a few dark Mexicans with Indian features, the Euro look is all-important to Mexican TV.

You will hardly ever see blacks in powerful political and business positions through out Latin America because of Racial Discrimination. Being Black in Most of Latin America will put you in a lower cast, politically and fewer opportunities are open to you. Blacks in Mexico and through out Latin America are poor and leverage little influence. Even in Cuba Castro is surrounded by white skinned Hispanics, even his military officers are white skinned, and a large percent of his foot soldiers are black. You will see no Blacks working in Cuban Hotels because those are considered good jobs in Cuba.

Blacks through out Latin America are discriminated against because of having African heritage.
Check out this article in bold:

NO INDIANS, NO BLACKS
BY ROMULO HERNANDEZ
If you are Hispanic and you come to the United States, and you are not European white, you usually wonder if you are going to face racial discrimination. And from filling out the first form at the Immigration office, the Social Security office or in another other situation, we discover our category, regardless of the color of our skin. There's a specific race, which unifies all of us Latinos: "Mark the box that says Hispanic."

"What clerks they are! They classify everything, these gringos!" you think. My cousin thought that to be blond (even if it came out of a bottle) allowed her to put her self in the group called "white." But it wasn't like that to the Americans. She wasn't white enough if she was born in Latin America.

With time, you get used to this "classification" system of the gringos until you read with amusement that the black model in the ads for the famous commercial bank sued for millions because she was discriminated against by the company that she was promoting. She alleged racism against her!
I said that would happen when they added someone who was not white like them.

What's strange (considering that us Latin Americans are speaking of a country known as racist) is that at the same time we are reading about African Americans like Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby and Michael Jackson at the top of the lists of the multi-millionaires of show business. And it becomes normal to see on the programs with the largest audiences (In Living Color, Martin, or Living Single) that the stars of these shows are dark-skinned people.

How different it is in the mass media of our Latin American countries! Were we to judge by the images that arrive on our television sets and movie screens, we would come to the conclusions that everyone in our countries were Aryan-white with blond or red hair. No Indian or black face appears on the screen except to offer a cup of coffee to, to open the door for, or to KILL a more important character who is, WHITE.

In the written press it's no different. The photographs in the newspapers and on magazine covers show, most of the time, a profusion of faces that don't look like most of us. A good inspiration for Latin America would be to see 6 or 7 North American magazines, which feature articles about black personalities. Even the super white "Vogue" accepted long ago that there is beauty in black skin.

If we investigate the Latin American soap operas, sadly we will find the whiter the couples featured, the more successful they are. Is it that we hate ourselves? Is it that we can't bear to look at ourselves as we really are? Are we ashamed to accept that we are black and Indian? Do we have to have more uprisings like the one in Chiapas (Mexico) to see our true racial features in Latin American media?

If individuals with Indian or black faces want to increase their self-esteem, if they want to see themselves have the right to triumph in their profession or in life, unfortunately, they are going have difficulty because of the " ideal" of beauty on Latin American television. These typefaces and reflections of anchorman, actors or journalists who are people of color, are easier to find on US television than on our Latino channels. And that fact is a reflection of what is going on in Latin America. Also, this Latin American racism makes sure that you never see transmitted in commercials, not even by accident, a coastal (dark-skinned) Colombian, a (black Venezuelan, a Afro-Peruvian from El Callo near Lima or a black Mexican from Vera Cruz.

We worship the "Aryan" ideal to the point that Brazilian television personality, Xuxa, made her fortune (a veritable empire constructed with Indian and black money) singing and dancing with a chorus of five or six teenage "blondies" like her. All with long yellow hair. Okay, that did not cause any problem at all in our Latin American countries where most of the people are Mestizo (white and/or black and Indian mixed), Zambo (black and Indian mixed), black or Indian, even though they deserve to be represented on such a show. Nobody was offended. However, when they wanted to "cross-over" into the United States and produce the same program in English, we saw how the chorus of blonds was transformed into a rainbow of races. Probably because the producers received legal advice that no US broadcaster would be willing to risk his prestige, money and time with an eventual multi-million dollar lawsuit for discrimination.

And that precisely is the difference between our Latin American racism and that in the United States. In the US if you are not white, you are probably going to face situations where whites will make you feel you are not welcome, but at the same time you will receive pamphlets, fliers and books that tell you there are laws to protect you, where it is clearly stated that no one has to accept discrimination because of race, social condition or sexual orientation. Also, that practices like this can be avenged by a "juicy" lawsuit. Let Rodney King tell you whether that's true or not.

In Hispanic America when one is victimized by racial discrimination, people keep smiling and try to justify it: "No, here we call him Negro out of affection." Although they would never refer to a white person by his color instead of his name.

With the Indian, it's the same. The word "Indian" is used as a synonym for backward, stupid, uneducated. Thus, the word, which describes the greatest part of our race, is used by us as the greatest insult. But there is a more modern example. The Colombian, Carlos Vives, is the new Latin sex symbol who drives it home in a song that says, " What kind of culture could an Indian born in Chumeca have?" (He's just implies such a person has no culture) No need to say more.

Neither is it rare to hear stated with too much pride: "In my country there are no Indian nor blacks because we had more influence from Europe." So in that case there's no segregation? No prejudice? And in the majority of cases, no ignorance? What is curious is that from one of those countries, Argentina, where the people think of themselves as only European, came one of our greatest Hispanic singers, Mercedes Sosa, with her face so full of aboriginal features that looked like a proud symbol of the forgotten American Indian.

Further north, in Mexico, they can still be heard from the heavens those romantic voices that represented two races Indians and blacks--voices so popular in the past which are almost completely unknown to us today: Pedro Vargas and Tona La Negra. It's better that they were born in another time or they would still have been standing in line waiting for an opportunity. Today all vacancies for fame and glory are reserved for whiter people. They would be not place for them in today's worship by Latinos of the Aryan look. Because Latino society in its silence has bought-in to the myth "White Supremacy."


My thinking is that we as Black people were put in the Black category by whites to keep us separate from mainstream America, because of that, skin color became important to blacks and many tried to marry people lighter than them, the lighter the better. I think the reason many of us emphasize Blackness is because being black, as we all know carries social and political traits because of America's racist and segregated history that cannot be denied.

I do appreciate your wanting to be just you but many people perceive skin color as to have something to do with beauty and the content of one's character. Those who try to beg off from being black I view with suspicion. You, I don't because I am familiar with you. You a good man. smile

I also defer with you on this too

quote:
I think it would be in the best interests of blacks to somewhat de-emphasize "blackness". The reason being is that the emphasis on "blackness" says to people, "I am different from you".


I think we are not Black enough. In my opinion we need to think Black first when doing business. Other ethnic groups think of themselves first but we as blacks do not enough in a progressive and advantageous way. In my city Asians have an awesome business culture, their businesses thrive and tax money talks and they get many breaks from the city because Asian businesses generate tax revenues. Asians are fewer than blacks but they have political power because they stick together, they think Asian FIRST when exchanging money. This is true everywhere they are. They emphasize Asian for their own good. We as black people do not use our blackness as a catalyst to create black business for our own good.

Asians have many banks, restaurants, grocery stores and a diversity of businesses despite the fact many of them do not speak the same language. Hispanics are the same, they too have a thriving business climate.

We as Blacks have a lot to work on in creating and maintaining our own Black Business Culture.

There are many advantages in emphasizing Black instead of de-emphasizing blackness.

EZ big grin
JuneBug, excellent post!!!

MBM, I agree with your last post more than I disagree with it.

It was white racism, particularly the American brand that created One Drop. I started on my crusade against One Drop more then 15 years ago to go against white racism and to piss off whites!!! I found that most were not pissed off, but uncomfortable. That was then. Now it's totally different. I encounter belligerent hostility from, not whites, but many blacks with this issue today. And I have all the evidence to back up what I say 100%.

In 1999 or maybe '98, I wrote an article for my local paper regarding this issue and my family. The last sentence in the article was "We should all drop the labelings and just be HUMANS!!". I received scores of phone calls from strangers commending the article. The editor at the paper told me before it ran that the community activists would have a "problem" with it.....they did. The editor told me he went to a meeting where the discussed my article. My Aunt was there and she totally defended me...of course!!! But here was an article that was historically true, trying to bring people together, yet certain people had a problem with it. That just goes to show you what their true agendas are!!! If the article was in anyway false, or mean spirited, I would understand them having a problem with it. It was not. I do not have a problem with the truth. I have a problem with any group of people circumventing the truth for political and/or personal, social agendas. I don't care what the group is, NAACP, Council of Conservative Citizens, what have you.

MBM, some of the Asians who have told me about situations they have had with some black Americans, have African friends. Actually a fellow at my gym from Ghana told me when he first came to the US, he didn't like black Americans. So he hung out with whites and Asians (at college). The racist comments that were made to him were by black Americans like "monkey", "how can you be so smart when you grew up in a tree", blantantly racist statements.

What I am saying is this: I absolutely do not oppose a black identity. I think a black identity goes with what makes America what it is!!! BUT, many blacks have to abandon the notion that they must act, speak a certain way in order to be "black". Many black young people should be made to realize that doing well in education is the black thing to do that in actuality, the rebel slaves were the one's who knew who to read and write!!!! They were breaking the law!!!! The sooner this happens, the sooner blacks will be able to "assimulate". The sooner this happens, then we will be able to see the real racists, whomever they are!! This is where I am coming from. I know sometimes I do not explain myself well and come across as something that I am not trying to be. This is what I meant by de-emphasizing "blackness", NOT droping the black identity, which in my opinion is American. I mean the black identity is what gave us "cool", how many other gorups want to emulate that. The black identity in my opinion has contributed more to the American identity in the popular aspect than any other ethnicity, though all have contributed. I think blacks must realize they ARE American, this is their country and nobody can take it away!!! This is the message that I am trying to convey....though sometimes I do not do it well!!

I am NOT anti-black, I am NOT pro-white. I used to be anti-American, now I am not. What I am trying to do is emphasize what we all have in common. Anyone who knows me personally will attest to what I just said!!!!

JuneBug....are you EZBRO??? If you are, I know I owe you an article, if you remmeber what it was tell me so I can send it to you!!!!

Peace...... wink

[This message was edited by IndependentMan on September 18, 2002 at 09:30 AM.]
quote:
Originally posted by IndependentMan:

"But here was an article that was historically true, trying to bring people together, yet certain people had a problem with it".

Please be so kind as to reprint the article here so that we may judge for ourselves how historically true it is/isn't.


"MBM, some of the Asians who have told me about situations they have had with some black Americans, have African friends. Actually a fellow at my gym from Ghana told me when he first came to the US, he didn't like black Americans. So he hung out with whites and Asians (at college)."

So what made you ask Asians to rate differences between Africans and African-Americans anyway?

Apparently some Africans, still under the influence of 500 years of european colonization, believe the negative images of us portrayed in the media. Even my Island friend reports that his mother warned him to "stay away from american blacks because they're dangerous!" White Supremacist Ideology has influenced some Black people to think of themselves as the "right kind of negro" - hoping to be accepted by whites.

You might have taken the opportunity to help your African brother understand that the majority of America's 40 million black people do not live in ghettos or participate in gang related activities...Did that come up in your discussion?


"BUT, many blacks have to abandon the notion that they must act, speak a certain way in order to be "black"."

I'm still wondering how this is related to being 7/8 black or 15/16 black?

It reminds me of that case where african descendants were only considered 3/5ths of a person and therefore had no rights that white men were bound to honor...what was that? DRED SCOTT?




I tried this once too. I met a woman in Italy that was absolutely drop dead ridiculously gorgeous. She was about 5' 10", curves for days, and had the sexiest dark eyes. I met her in a club and did my best to share the "black experience" with her. wink Anyway, when she told me she didn't like "bleck men", being the creative and determined person that I am I quickly retorted that "I wasn't black".

Didn't work. big grin
negrospiritual,

No I am not joking. I will post the article later. All of the articles I have posted on this topic are historically and factually true. If they are not, line item what you think not to be true. I have done this repeatedly on the other forum, and instead of the people pointing out was was not true (they couldn't), I got sarcasm, insults, and name calling, let alone the arm twisting strategies the followers of "Black Group Thought" like to deploy.

quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
So what made you ask Asians to rate differences between Africans and African-Americans anyway?



No I didn't ask Asians to "rate differences" between Africans and Black Americans. Some Asians have simply stated to me their experiences with some Black Americans. They have stated that they do not see the same behavioural patterns in Africans than they do with some Black Americans. That simple. I see bad Black behaviour all the time. Particularly at the mall. But you know what?? It doesn't even faze the whites because they expect this behaviour by blacks!!! It's pretty sad.

quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
You might have taken the opportunity to help your African brother understand that the majority of America's 40 million black people do not live in ghettos or participate in gang related activities...Did that come up in your discussion?



It's 30 million people. And yes we did. And he is well aware of this!!!


So go ahead, what point out what is not true in any of the articles here that I have posted!!!!

wink razz

[This message was edited by IndependentMan on September 19, 2002 at 07:31 AM.]
Hello, Independent Man,

Your point, if I see it correctly, is that we should forget the One Drop Rule? I'm not attatched to it, personally, but I think your goal is that if we look at "blackness" differently, we'll be better for it. You posted a mountain of stuff, so if you explained it, forgive me for missing it, but does one of these things have to do with the other? Are you saying we need to change, and the way to start, or a large component, is doing away with the ODR?

Groupthink, though, is interesting to me, because I think when Asians or Africans, et cetera, say the things they have to you (this isn't my experience, but I've heard of it), I wonder if they're not engaging in a similar groupthink, and I don't know if their opinions should matter at any rate. Certainly theirs shouldn't matter before they get their own stuff together internally (intra-Asian/intra-African/intra-Hispanic relations).
quote:
Originally posted by Lea:

Independent Man,

Your point, if I see it correctly, is that we should forget the One Drop Rule?


But I wonder what independent man thinks will be the advantage in black people dropping the one drop rule since it was not black people who created enacted legislation based on it or went about enforcing it?
quote:
Originally posted by Lea:
Hello, Independent Man,

Your point, if I see it correctly, is that we should forget the One Drop Rule? I'm not attatched to it, personally, but I think your goal is that if we look at "blackness" differently, we'll be better for it. You posted a mountain of stuff, so if you explained it, forgive me for missing it, but does one of these things have to do with the other? Are you saying we need to change, and the way to start, or a large component, is doing away with the ODR?

Groupthink, though, is interesting to me, because I think when Asians or Africans, et cetera, say the things they have to you (this isn't my experience, but I've heard of it), I wonder if they're not engaging in a similar groupthink, and I don't know if their opinions should matter at any rate. Certainly theirs shouldn't matter before they get their own stuff together internally (intra-Asian/intra-African/intra-Hispanic relations).


Hi Lea!!!

Yes, The ODR is an old outdated Jim Crow form of white racism/supremacy!!! It should be done away with as it eventually will. It's only a matter of time. Black left wing civil rights groups are well aware of this. This is why a Tiger Woods is a threat to them. This is the reason why they and many other people, like many who post here and on other forums, become so hostile at him when he doesn't say the things they think he should be saying. Ebony magazine published a poll which stated that by 2050, most people who are of partial African descent will no longer be calling themselves "black" or "African American".

Your second paragraph, I wouldn't really say it's group think, but more individual experiences.

quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
But I wonder what independent man thinks will be the advantage in black people dropping the one drop rule since it was not black people who created enacted legislation based on it or went about enforcing it?



Yes you have brought this up several times and in almost everyone of my posts I have mentioned this. I have also stated that the ODR was the epiome of white racism/supremacy. That siad, it is interesting that people like you want to support it for some kind of "unity". Therefore, you want "unity" with people who are not really black in the genetical sense of what an anthropologist would consider "black". I could be wrong about that. But what I am right about is that anyone who supports ODR, whether "white" or "black" is doing so for some sort of racialist purpose that does no good for society at large. And if you have read through my posts, you will have noticed that America was the only place on the planet with such a rule, and many people you would see as "black", many others from other parts of the world do not. I can attest to this personally.

Peace!!

wink
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
Now that the new Miss America (from Illinois) is black/bi-racial, I can just imagine the new posts coming!! smile


Onward and Upward!


LOL!! But let's look at the logistics of genetical reality. Her father is Welsh/Scoth/Irish/German... i.e. White. Her mother is part black/American Indian/Russian. I would gather that one of her mother's parents is Russian... i.e. White. So the other parent is Black/American Indian. Let's say for the sake of argument that her mother is 40% Black African descent. That would make the new Miss America only 20% Black African descent and 80% something other than Black African descent. She is more than 50% White European descent. The 64,000 dollar question is: With her being most lekely not even a quarter Black African ancestry, how does this qualify her to be "Black"??? Does 20% = 100%??? On the other forum, she has been accused of "running away from her 'blackness'" which I think is a racist absurd statement.

We all know that it does not!!!! This is a growing trend whether people who support One Drop like it or not.

wink
Hello Ms. La Femme Nkechi and everyone else,


"An example: I was interacially married for 13 years. My ex husband is Thai (Thailand, not Taiwan). My last name was a long azz obviously Asian last name. When I was job hunting, I'd talk to them over the phone first and they were excited to meet me. They loved me, that is, until they met me and found out I was a black woman. I got this from white and asian perspective (men) employers. They did not do anything outright right there. But even though I did well on the test and it look like I was a fit, all of sudden, I could not reach them on the phone or did not hear back from them.

Solutions: They only thing I want to do is concentrate on building our communities and not rely on them, need them for anything. Everyone else that seems to immigrate here build a strong foundation, commnities, self regulation. And though we did not immigrate willingly, relying on American justice is not going to ever work, not until we can equally run things.

I'm not saying that this is the only answer or even the right one. My heart speaks from the pain of what I see and learn everyday about how they purposely try to keep us down. We can rise above it, I know it!" by La Femme Nkechi

Indeed, much of what you state is true, because many times decisions are based on cultural heritage. A few years ago, through family connections I came across a prominent Black university professor who was married to a Japanese woman. He treated her like the heel of his shoe to which she could not return to her native Japanese family because she was written off as not being a part of the family for marrying out of her race.

I agree with your solution in that Black people must create opportunities of all forms for each other because it is not in the best interest for any other ethnic group to be the first to create opportunity for Black people. I'm sure the experience that you have shared was painful, and it definitely cleared up any doubt as to the reality of race in your mind. Just as in nature, "Birds of a Feather Flock Together", the same can be said as it pertains to the reality of inter-action between various ethnic groups, etc.

The key equalizer is social, political, economic influence, and U.S. Constitutionally mandated protections through organization and effective leadership. Many Koreans, Japanese, Hispanics are doing very well in the United States because they pool their resources to create business and gainful employment opportunities for each other to free them from being dependent on any outside ethnic group for survival. Some of these ethnic groups have done so well as it pertains to business development, the Hispanic community one clear example, that sheer purchasing power has opened the door to previously denied business opportunities. Corporate America looks at "Green" rather than your ethnicity, for a business owner's primary aim is to make money and lots of it. Black people must come together to be economically, socially, and/or politically strong to even think about being included in the market place in the United States, or for that matter throughout the world.

Until this happens, the masses of Black America will remain second class citizens, continue to "Beg" an outside ethnic group for a chance to gainful employment, volunteer for military service, turn to the subculture for survival to an end of prison confinement or death. The future posterity of Black people within the U.S. will be very uncertain in the event Black people fail to come together to create a bright future for our own future survival.

We must get past all these petty differences of shades of Blackness, because in reality we are on our own. Be it Octoroon, Creo, 100% Black to 10% and below, the mixtures are forced back upon Black America, or used to bring dissention between us that if not dealt with will consume us as a people. Black people will not bond or be accepted to be in the inner circle with Koreans, Hispanics, Japanese, Caucasians, Jews, Arabs, etc., etc., no matter what the percentage of Black blood in your family line. Other ethnic groups are well aware of the animosity that exists between Black people based upon class differences, shades of Blackness, etc., and so far we have allowed them to use us against each other, or allowed our own ignorance to get the best of us.


Sincerely,

Michael Lofton

[This message was edited by Michael Lofton on September 27, 2002 at 11:49 PM.]
When will you undertsand 'race',or what ever word you think is more appropriate, does matter.There are obvious differences b/w us, even if you think these differences r superficial/insignificant. You can't just simply IGNORE them. I think the 'race' that you are arguing doesn't exist is different then the race everyone else is talking about. How you look does and always will matter. That's human nature, how you look matters, it affects how others view you and how you view yourself. People differentiate from people who look different then them. This becomes a problem when they become prejudiced or look down on other people who look different then them. I am not arguing that we are a completely different species, or completely different biologically, which 'race is not a bioloigical concept'scientists keep insisting is not so WHICH I'M NOT EVEN ARGUING IN THE FIRST PLACE. Human beings are human beings, and there is no way in reality you can just IGNORE the fact that someone looks drasticly different then you, it might be superficial, but PEOPLE are like this, we are not robots. This is not just a 'social construct'. Race was not 'invented' in the 17th century, if you live in Africa, or Europe or wherever before slavery/colonization, and everyone looks like you, obviously you'r not going to think about 'race', but when you are suddenly encountered with people who look drasticly different then you, then it will matter.( it won't necessarily be a bad thing, but it's not like you literally won't NOTICE the differences). If hypothetically, there was a lost continent and it was inhabited by green people, humans just like us, you can't say it wouldn't matter at all. You said before that people would insist 'race' existed because "they could 'see' the 'races'", because this matters to HUMANS, and always will, being VISUAL is not something that was 'invented' in the 17th century. People feel different when they are surrounded by people who look similar to them and then by people who look drasticly different then them. This has nothing to do with any politcal ideaology or any "social construct" but I, and I think many people, feel comfortable and associate a sense of familiarity/home with other people who look like you.Is something wrong with me? If this is superficial, then, in REALITY, I guess people are naturally superficial to some extent. Just because you personally feel we shoudln't distinguish ourselves on these lines, doesn't mean that is a FACT everyone has to EMBRACE. I wouldn't want to live in a place where everyone was green or blue, no disrespect to them if they were green or blue people, I think it's NORMAL and HEALTHY to feel comfortable around others who look like me( or have some others who look like me around). There is not a human being on this planet where looks do not matter AT ALL( unless they're literally blind maybe), at least to some extent. And even after this, we are still a completely different people culturally. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but don't force your own "we are the world" views on everyone and else and call that science. Let me speak how I honestly feel, the idea of living in a 'color blind society' where "we are the world" reigns and I can't distinguish myself as a proud Black man( not better or worse then anyone else, just different) makes me so sick to my stomach to the point of vomitting. I don't want to be viewed as 'no different' then whyte people.That disgusts me. This is just how I feel."race" is not something that you will teach away as 'unscientific'.
I guess there has been constant changes in the thresholds for who is Black in america.

I guess one could be looking at the different aspect like legal or social or physical.

There are a lot of light-skinned brother/sisters checking their family tree since the government offered healthy grants to Indian american descendants. Choctaw, Blackfoot, Cherokee anyone?

The Klan is not defining Black as openly as once before.

Weave, colored eyes, the use of the word N----r by everybody, Michael Jackson, Phd's, Eddie Bauer, republicans [(only joking) maybe not], heck democrats for that matter, did I say weave....

My thoughts on those that may be marginal,for whatever thought or reason, these days; if it needs an explanation then you are Black. Don't fool yourself.

EAZy

Add Reply

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