Being black or white - or mixed - in America

[Zuffox]

Though some might take offence to this thread, I mean no such thing; it's more of a question to you rather than a statement on my part.

I recently read an article - in my local language, so not much use to you - about people in USA being prone to be regarded as either black or white, disregarding other ethnicities such as Asian, Hispanic etc. in this case. I'm talking in terms of Caucasianism versus African-Americanism. The one drop rule seems to apply: One drop of African-American blood, and you're black.

There is, however a term for people born of a black and white parent respectively: Mulatto. Though some find it pejorative, which might explain the aforementioned dichotomy caused by people being uneasy about using it. Or maybe it's just the one drop rule I mentioned before that dictates the matter.

If we take Barack Obama as an example, he's a child of a white woman and a black Kenyan - to boot, the father left in his early childhood and, from what I recall, was later killed in a car accident, resulting in Obama being raised in an entirely white family (and environment mayhap). This makes Barack a mulatto, if we assume that the classification of a person as "white" and "black" are rigid in themselves (people can presumably hardly be entirely white and black altogether if one looks at the whole pedigree).

What piques my interest is the question of what make people refer to, say, Obama as being black - and the first black president to come - considering the tidbits I've just posted.

 

[Leifmk]

if we assume that the classification of a person as "white" and "black" are rigid in themselves

Well, that's one heck of an "if" there.

What piques my interest is the question of what make people refer to, say, Obama as being black - and the first black president to come - considering the tidbits I've just posted.

There is always the "one drop" rule as previously mentioned by yourself. Which seems to logically imply that "Black" genes are somehow powerful enough that even the tiniest amount can spoil the broth, so to speak.

Meanwhile, white people drive like this, while black people drive like this.

 

[Zuffox]

Well, that's one heck of an "if" there.

No doubt - but would the lack of rigidity count in favour of calling Obama black or the opposite? Or would it make the whole thing completely nebulous and random.

(And why was the view count for the thread 0, when another user had already replied?)

 

[Bill3000]

We've never really had a concept of mixed races here in the US, as opposed to Latin America. We just stuck them with blacks. The one drop rule was there in a supreme court decision, after all.

Besides, the average African American has 53% sub-saharan african ancestry in the US. Calling them mulatto would sort of ruin the point of calling 'em black. And besides, race is far more a matter of identity than it is a matter of the color of your skin.

 

[JerichoHill]

I dont know what youre talking about at all (OP) as mixed races and mixed relationships are really commonplace in the US

 

[Cutlass]

If people look black, that's pretty much how they are treated. One drop of blood doesn't make you black, though legally it used to. The distinctions between the races are less than they were. But they are not gone.

 

[potatokiosk]

Besides, the average African American has 53% sub-saharan african ancestry in the US. Calling them mulatto would sort of ruin the point of calling 'em black. And besides, race is far more a matter of identity than it is a matter of the color of your skin.

Where did you get that 53% statistic? I'm just curious.

 

[Gooblah]

I sure haven't heard about pure black/white distinction. It's just Asians, Hispanics, "African-Americans" (okay..'colored people' doesn't work anymore - I'm talking to you, Mr Benjamin Jealous), and white people (if you prefer "Caucasian, go right ahead").

In my area, it's Chinese/Korean/Hispanic/Black/White/Arab/Indian. Kinda diverse, which is nice.

AFAIK there are tons of mixed-race couples, etc. They're treated the same as anyone else, really...

 

[luiz]

Bill3000 has a point. Historically speaking there was far less "mixed-race" couples in the US than in Latin America, which is why everybody was considered either black or white (untill the recent past the number of Asians, "hispanics" and etc was very small compared to those two groups).

Of course, it was relatively common for white slave-owners to have sons with black female slaves. However, unlike in Brazil where that mulatto kid would always be raised free, in the US he was likely to be raised by the slaves. In Brazil a mulatto was legally white (even if they were not part of the "official" white familes), while in the US they were black.

However, if we are to talk about the oddities of US racial classifications, nothing beats that "Hispanic" crap. Americans seem to think that everyone between the Rio Grande and Patagonia belong to a same ethnicity, which is complete BS from cultural, historical and "racial" POVs.

 

[mangxema]

There is always the "one drop" rule as previously mentioned by yourself. Which seems to logically imply that "Black" genes are somehow powerful enough that even the tiniest amount can spoil the broth, so to speak.

The 'one drop' rule is not necessarily racist, though. White skin does tend to be over-powered by just about any other ethnicity the spouse may have, so the kids usually look like the other. I remember seeing this one TV show where this white woman and a Korean guy had a ton of kids at once or something, and they all looked Asian-ish, with the black hair and the eyes and stuff. It only becomes racist if you pair it with the racist belief that other ethnicities are inherently inferior than whites.

 

[Ansar]

Bill3000 has a point. Historically speaking there was far less "mixed-race" couples in the US than in Latin America, which is why everybody was considered either black or white (untill the recent past the number of Asians, "hispanics" and etc was very small compared to those two groups).

Well, actually, it used to be classified as "Mexican American or Chicano" since most of the hispanic immigrants were Mexican.

 

[Perfection]

However, if we are to talk about the oddities of US racial classifications, nothing beats that "Hispanic" crap. Americans seem to think that everyone between the Rio Grande and Patagonia belong to a same ethnicity, which is complete BS from cultural, historical and "racial" POVs.

Not really, they think of it as the same race, which is not the same as the same ethnictiy.

 

[Bill3000]

However, if we are to talk about the oddities of US racial classifications, nothing beats that "Hispanic" crap. Americans seem to think that everyone between the Rio Grande and Patagonia belong to a same ethnicity, which is complete BS from cultural, historical and "racial" POVs.

I dunno, you all look the same to me.

It's common for a culture to group different cultures together. The best example would be the Tatars in asia, which were expanded to any non-christian tribes in siberia despite there being an incredible amount of diversity; far more than the Hispanic world, anyway.

 

[Bill3000]

Where did you get that 53% statistic? I'm just curious.

Wiki, which lead to http://www.isteve.com/2002_How_White_Are_Blacks.htm

 

[Civfan333]

I never see much African-americans here........it's more asian and pacific Islanders

 

[luiz]

Not really, they think of it as the same race, which is not the same as the same ethnictiy.

Thinking of all Latin Americans as the same "race" is wronger than thinking of them all as the same ethnicity.

 

[BrendanM]

Though some might take offence to this thread, I mean no such thing; it's more of a question to you rather than a statement on my part.

I recently read an article - in my local language, so not much use to you - about people in USA being prone to be regarded as either black or white, disregarding other ethnicities such as Asian, Hispanic etc. in this case. I'm talking in terms of Caucasianism versus African-Americanism. The one drop rule seems to apply: One drop of African-American blood, and you're black.

There is, however a term for people born of a black and white parent respectively: Mulatto. Though some find it pejorative, which might explain the aforementioned dichotomy caused by people being uneasy about using it. Or maybe it's just the one drop rule I mentioned before that dictates the matter.

If we take Barack Obama as an example, he's a child of a white woman and a black Kenyan - to boot, the father left in his early childhood and, from what I recall, was later killed in a car accident, resulting in Obama being raised in an entirely white family (and environment mayhap). This makes Barack a mulatto, if we assume that the classification of a person as "white" and "black" are rigid in themselves (people can presumably hardly be entirely white and black altogether if one looks at the whole pedigree).

What piques my interest is the question of what make people refer to, say, Obama as being black - and the first black president to come - considering the tidbits I've just posted.

Obama is like a Colin Powell. His skin looks black but that's just a facade for his white personality. Barack is mixed, but he's definitely not black or does not act the least bit black. You'll know what I mean if you've ever seen Al Sharpton on TV. If anything Barack will be the first non-white President, but not the first black president, IMO.

This one drop of blood thing is more reminiscent of the Jim Crow and earlier days. It doesn't really hold much authority in modern times. You have to look black to be black or look white to be white (which, with every rule comes the exception, there are blacks who tend to act more white and whites who act black. They are referred to as Uncle Toms and Wiggers, respectively.) Then the mix in between is where the line blurs - it's up to that person to find what culture suits them better: black culture or white culture, and in some cases they may feel more comfortable around Hispanics - it's generally reflective upon their peer group during youth.

It is true that black and white has been the main racial groups in the US, that is quickly changing with the arrival of Latinos, legal and illegal, into the US. Some even estimate that there are more Latinos in the US than blacks, and that's pretty amazing since blacks have been the 2nd largest racial group in the US since... ever. We really can't "disregard" them in America's modern racial make-up.

 

[bhsup]

Thinking of all Latin Americans as the same "race" is wronger than thinking of them all as the same ethnicity.

Putting aside my personal feelings about the stupidity of measuring race anyway, that isn't what "hispanic" means.

For example, here is the racial breakdown of my hometown from Wiki. Note the bold.

The racial makeup of the city was 95.65% White, 1.92% African American, 0.43% Native American, 0.38% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 0.55% from other races, and 1.05% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 0.97% of the population.

Also..

The Office of Management and Budget defines "Hispanic or Latino" as "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race."

 

[Ayatollah So]

And besides, race is far more a matter of identity than it is a matter of the color of your skin.

Yeah, it's pretty much all in our heads. Criticizing the way Americans classify race is a bit like criticizing them for playing American football rather than soccer. Or baseball rather than cricket. Except that in the "race" game, people do sometimes beat each other over the heads with those bats. Now that's worth criticizing.

 

[Perfection]

Thinking of all Latin Americans as the same "race" is wronger than thinking of them all as the same ethnicity.

Race by some cosanguinity requirement, yes. Race as in a loose cultural association, nah. There are a few broad strokes that are fairly universal among Latin Americans, and so it serves fit to have a name for these.