Black Or Bi-Racial?

Don’t know if the grass is really greener over the fence, or not, but I thought I’d mention something from the other side of the Great Racial Divide.

I’ve noticed a trend both in the real world and on this thread about “passing” as white. But, if a person does leap over the fence he or she would find that they’re still not home free because, just as blacks/mixed folks divide themselves into darker, lighter, and other subdivisions so do the white.

I recall that my maternal grandfather - a relatively dark-skinned red-head, with very tightly curled hair and somewhat full lips - was dogged all his life by suspicions that he was “passing”. Indeed, although my mother is green-eyed, red haired, and has never been taken for anything but white she is still darker skinned than my black-haired father of Russian descent. Several of her brothers could be mistaken for Italian, despite being half-Irish. My grandfather came from Germany - but beyond that we really know nothing of his life before adulthood. But if I found out tomorrow he was, indeed, a passing black? I’ve lived all my life as a white person, I don’t see how that knowledge would change me - but it would certainly change the way others perceive me. I do know the suspicion held my grandfather down, put him on the bottom rung of the white world.

As another interesting note - while I seem to have gotten all the pale genes in the family, I have a full-blooded sister who has been taken to be bi-racial more than once - I joke that she got all of my color as well as her own share. Again, just goes to show you how slippery this whole color concept can be.

I’ve also been told, point blank, by certain - um, shall we call them religious zealots? - that by being half-Jew I am not a white person at all. Well, gosh darn it, I’ve got a hide pale enough that I disappear against most walls, what would you call that? I was raised to think of myself as white. I was immersed in white culture. Of course, these are the same idiots who would speak Hebrew to me, assuming it was genetically imprinted or something because I’ve never studied the language or had any urge to practice the Jewish religion. Yet another ugly form of bigotry. In much of the white world Jews aren’t white and are just one step above blacks. In some places (the Middle East, as an example), they are probably a rung below the Africans. Not that I want to start that sort of comparison contest.

Slavs are not held in high esteem by Germans and English. In fact, they weren’t looked on too fondly by the Italians, either - the word “slave” comes from a time when virtually all “slaves” in Europe were from “Slavic” countries.

In the white world, being blond is better than being brown or black haired. Pale skin burned to a tan is better than naturally “tan” skin. Blue eyes are better than brown.

So the olive skinned brown-eyed brown-haired white girl, however beautiful, is at a distinct disadvantage to the one with bond hair and blue eyes, however plain.

And from what I’ve seen and heard this sort of subdivison occurs among Hispanics and Asians as well - if not by hair and skin then by ranking Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Guatamaleans, or by holding Japanese superior to Koreans (althuogh they’re pretty much the same folks genetically) or some other group over another.

Pretty sick and twisted all over, isn’t it?

As for Halle Berry “opening the doors” - while she may not appear very “black” to many people (truthfully, the first time I saw her I didn’t think “black”, I thought “exotic” - someone mostly Causian but with some sort of non-Causasian as well. Is that biased? Yeah, probably - never claimed to be perfect. But give me points for honesty), she identifies herself as a black woman and to the white world at large she is perceived to be black. If you will forgive the language, to a lot of white bigots she is still “just another uppity nigger” (I heard that three times this week - cripes, one black woman in what, over seventy-five years wins the prize for Best Actress and it’s gotta be a fix? Man, I get sooooo tired of this crap. Then remind myself I ain’t the one suffering most from it) Actually, to many of those white bigots a “passable black” is MORE dangerous than a pure African mama because she just might try to pass and, if successful, sully their precious purity. (Pardon me while I puke) I have no doubt, listening to some of the human scum (who, for some reason, assume I will side with them merely because our skin tones are simllar) that no matter how “non-black” a person of mixed heritage appears to be, if they are perceived as black they will suffer discrimination based on that perception.

I sometimes think the very pale blacks have it worst - they get it from both sides.

As for all blacks being mixed - not true. I’ve known several folks who immigrated here to the States directly from African (mostly Nigerian, one fellow I believe is Xhosa). I’d say they stand a pretty good chance of being as “pure” black as anyone could be.

Well, I wouldn’t say “much of the white world,” at least not the East Coast whitey land. Indiana might be another matter, but I think the characterization, both actually, is too strong.

Valid overall point though.

Ah, the latter was more than a few centuries ago, but the basic point was correct.

???

No one told me that.

Again, I question this. I don’t disagree with your overall points, but as a matter of fact, I don’t know that this is true.

Oh dear. Indiana?

If I may be so bold, I believe that I was clearly refering to American blacks with the implication I was not speaking to recent African immigrants, who while growing in numbers remain a tiny % of the black American population.

Just because I currently live in Indiana please don’t assume my entire existance has been there. I have lived in Missouri, West Virginia, Michigan, and Illinois in addition to my current state, and have spent considerable time in Tenneessee

In New York and other parts of New England Jews are pretty well accepted. In the deep south, they were (and in many cases, still are) on the undesirable list. When my father was a young man wanting to go to college he was told point blank by many universities “we don’t accept Jews.” Granted, that was back in the 1950s and the bias is not expressed so openly these days - but it’s still there. In the deep south, they were (and in many cases, still are) on the undesirable list. My father still talks about the time the sheriff of Bristol, Tennessee came to his hotel room and told him to get out of town before sunset, telling him that if he didn’t he could expect a mob to evict him by midnight. Alright, that was 1969, I’d like to think we’ve made progress. But when I was in that area in the 1990’s (considering a move there), after being treated to a long list of various Baptist churches, I asked about synagogues. I was told “this is a Christian county. We don’t have those types here”.

West of Appalacia, Jews are tolerated to the extent of little overt harassment but don’t kid yourself the bias isn’t there. I’d go into detail, but I don’t want to turn this into a rant about anti-Jewishness since I don’t think that was the intent here. I was using it as an example that even people who appear white can be subject to biogtry. I do feel that those of African descent and the Native Americans have suffered the most from prejudice on this continent. I don’t want to get into an argument of which of those two suffered most. I was trying to make the point that even if a light-skinned black person “passed” they still weren’t home free. Being taken for an “undesirable” variety of white, while not as bad as being subject to the prejudice blacks experience, is still not fun.

If that isn’t true why is “blond” the most popular hair dye in the hair color aisle at the local drug store? Why so many bleached-hair white models on magazine covers? Why, when advertising colored contact lenses, do they invariably show a model going from brown to blue?

I don’t deny there are men out there who prefer the dark varieties of Caucasian woman - but they aren’t the ones in the advertising business. And many Caucasian women express a preference for blond men as well.

I don’t feel I need proof of the preference for blonds/very pale because I’ve grown up in this country and soaked up the culture. It’s like requiring proof that there is a preference for youth over age. It’s like debating whether jocks or computer geeks are more socially popular in high school.

No. It was Oh dear - Chicago. Cosmopolitan Chicago Loop sophisticated “colorblind” corporate America, the place I work. Again, don’t assume that because I live in Indiana I never leave its borders. In fact, I work in the skyscraper district of Chicago.

It’s the same crowd who express disbelief that I live in big, bad, Gary, Indiana - “Why? You’re not black”. Got news for you folks - white folks live in Gary, too, always have. In fact, the mayor is a white guy and has been for years. Doesn’t seem to be an issue with folks of any color on our side of the border. Nor is Gary one big housing project, it’s mostly single-family homes. I’m not saying everyone loves each other, because they don’t, but I am continually blown out of the water by folks in Chicago who honestly think one person of the “wrong” color in a neighborhood means the world is going to hell. Granted, Chicago is still one of the most segregated areas of the country.

I live in a mixed neighborhood for, among other reasons, I don’t want to pay the “white people tax” - rents in all-white or predominantly white neighborhoods are two to three times those in mixed or predominantly non-white areas with the same crime rates. I’m told "but you have to pay that much to live in a good neighborhood. No, I’d have to pay that much to live in a white neighborhood. There are plenty of good neighborhoods with blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and folks with broken English.

There’s proof that being anything other than Caucausian is a drawback in this country - the real estate market. The day a predominantly black neighborhood has higher property values that a comparable predominantly white neighborhood we’ll know we’ve really made some progress towards equality.

Very interesting and articulate post, Deadly Nightlight. I didn’t have quite the same experience as you did, so I don’t really have any comment, except to share that I was once called an “Oreo” by a 16-year-old, wealthy White kid from Connecticut!!! :eek:

To this I would say that no one individual can represent the struggles of all black Americans. Denzel Washington doesn’t represent the struggles of black Americans, though he’s darker-skinned. I’m sure he has his own tales of woe due to being black, but he’s still a freaking celebrity. It’s not like he was living in the projects ala Good Times prior to winning his award.

Halle Berry might be cafe au lait, but the woman has still faced adversity. I remember hearing something about how in high school, she was voted Homecoming Queen by her class and there was a strong contigent who believed she had rigged the election. It was an allegation that was soon found to be unfounded. Was their disbelief due to the fact that they felt Halle’s blackness was incongruent with beauty? We will probably never know for certain, but it still makes one wonder.

It should also be noted that Halle Berry–like many celebrities–has done quite a bit cosmetic surgery. Comparing her high school yearbook photos with her current ones, it’s easy to see she’s “touched-up” her nose, making it look more European. Many people–white and black–alter their noses, true, but I’m wondering if Halle would be so praised for her beauty if she had kept her more fuller, rounded nose. Again, who knows?

**

This has been written about in popular literature. The “light-skinned = better” thing in Hollywood seems to only apply to women. Think about all Hollywood’s leading black actors. Will Smith. Denzel. Wesley Snipes. Danny Glover. Blair Underwood. Now think about the black women with comparable fame. Halle Berry. Thandi Newton. Vanessa Williams. Nia Long. Lynn Whitfield. Jada Pinkett. Gloria Ruben. The late Ailiya. There are several famous black actresses that aren’t light-skinned–Angela Bassett and Vivaca Fox are two–but it’s more common than not that you will encounter a light-skinned actress over an actor. Why is this? I have my guesses.

So if you are a light-skinned black male, you aren’t necessarily advantaged over a dark-skinned one, whereas the opposite applies if you are a black woman. IMHO, both things suck. Blondes might me preferred in Hollywood, but at least you can die your hair. Most black people aren’t willing to go the Michael Jackson route, thankyouverymuch.

**

Well, if Halle has had an advantage because she’s light-skinned, just think how much harder it is for dark-skinned actresses. Yeah, it’s easier for her to say she’s struggled, but the very fact that even SHE has had to struggle is a testament to how hard it is to make it in Hollywood if you’re black.

Well, this just goes to show how ingrained it is to “blacken” people, as it were. I did say that my Abuela (grandmother) was Spanish (from Spain)-- so that makes me “kinda” white.

In fact I was not speaking about race (I have stated my opinion on biological races often enough) but about culture and heritage. My background is American black and Puerto Rican. In as much as ideas and personalities are formed by our culture, my ideas and personality were formed by those two cultures. In fact, I was raised by my Spanish/Puerto Rican grandmother in a “Puerto Rican” household and spent my summers with my father in a “black” household.

I am black and Puerto Rican. To most of the world at large, I am black. And, according to some people with whom cuate has conversations with, there is no difference between black and Puerto Rican. A weird wold-view, if you ask me.

So, how do these people differentiate between races? Africans are not white (unless you are speaking about certain South Africans and certain people who live above the Sahara). Asians are not white (unless, of course, you are speaking of Asia north of India. And what about Indians? Are they white or black?) Australians are white (unless you are speaking about the aboriginies, they are black, yes?)

It seems that many use the term black to mean not European but not Asian either and not really Native American, maybe hispanic-- but not always— Hey, I know it whe I see it!

Whenever I am feeling sorry for myself because the cards are stacked against me for being female, or because of my age, or whatever external reason I dream up, I remember Oprah - love her or hate her, you can’t deny that that woman has succeeded in spite of being black, female and overweight. And it isn’t like she was born with the advantages of wealth.

I have a Korean son. He is being raised by some very white parents and has an Irish last name. At times, the most accurate way to describe him is Korean. At times, the most accurate way to describe him is American. At times, the most accurate description is “pretty darn white for a kid who looks .” And if he wants to wear a “Kiss me I’m Irish” button on St. Patrick’s day - I’m not going to stop him.

My fiancée (to-be wife in just three months!) is Nigerian and I am your prototypical Scandinavian looking guy–pale and blond. One thing we often think about is what our future children will look like. (I suppose if they came out like Halle Berry, we wouldn’t complain…)

One of the primary concerns people raise when hearing about a interracial marriage is, “What about the children?” And I think some of the things discussed in this thread are evidence to why that can be a valid concern. I hope that my kids will be able to feel secure in whatever identity they choose despite being in a society that seems to be so set on compartmentalizing them.

Also, I hope that my children will not have difficulty in feeling a connection to ME, who, most likely, will not have a similar racial appearance… At least, that is a possibility.

I know the path we chose to be together is a potentially difficult one, but I think that in some small way we’re doing something positive for the world. I hope so, anyway.

Celestina: Reread the second sentence of your first post directed at me: “By all means call yourself “mixed,” or “blue,” or whatever.” You claim not to have been dismissive, but I don’t see how the above can be interpreted in any other way.

Where did I say you were speaking for all black people? My beef was with your use of the word “fact” to equate “black” with “mixed” as ethnic designations. For your personal life, they are equivilent. A great many Americans whose ancestry is black and something else choose, or have thrust upon them, the ethnic designation black. I understand all of this. It does not mean that “black” and “mixed” mean the same thing. They have distinct meanings, and to say that it is a fact that they are the same is to disrespect the choice of those who choose the latter over the former.

[celestina scratching her head]

Number Six, I don’t understand how you can see what I said to you as being dismissive or disrespectful, but as you did see it that way, in my second post to you, do you recall that I apologized if you interpreted it that way and said that that was not my intent at all? Let’s review exactly how I responded in my first post to what you said.

“Number Six, well we can quibble over semantics, but I really don’t want to. By all means call yourself “mixed,” or “blue,” or whatever. However, what you call a perception on my part, I realize as my reality that is rooted in Black history. For me it is a fact that “black” means being mixed culturally, socially, nationally, historically. . .”

Put another way, we could waste time quibbling over meanings, but I don’t want to do that. Call yourself whatever you want to because I don’t know you, and I don’t have the time or particularly feel inclined to tell you how you should identify yourself. I do disagree with your dismissing what is reality based in historical fact as a “perception.”

Number Six said: “Your choice of ethnic identity, no matter how profound the effect it may have on your life, is not the truth for everyone.”

It is here where it appears to me that you imply that I’m trying to speak for all black folks. I responded to that implication:

“What I tried to convey in my post, and apparently failed to get across to you, is that I am well aware that within the black community, there are a plethora of ways to define what “black” means. And, within in black and American history there has been a struggle for black folks to overcome non-black, dismissive, and disrespectful efforts to control how black folks define themselves. However, at the root of things, encoded in the history of race relations in this country, it is a fact that “black” was a convenient way to define folks of mixed ancestry.”
And I repeat that speaking for all black people was not nor has ever been my intention or inclination. I will, however, talk about history and historical facts.

What I take issue with is your calling what is documented as historical fact—that “black” does mean “mixed” (See tomndebb’s linked cites for an example.)—as a “perception.” While I do not claim to speak for all black people, I do realize that the history of how “black” and “white” came to be defined in America and other places touched by the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade does inform how folks who have multiple racial heritages, one of which being of African descent, define themselves as “black.” It is that history that informs my own choice to self-identify as “black.” If you study the history of “black” as a term of self-identification, you will see how it is not just a “perception,” but rather a historical fact.

Now if you’re getting at the logic of using arbitrary fractions or colors to define oneself as being of one heritage or another, then that’s another matter. It doesn’t make any damn sense how race designations came to be and have been perpetuated in the history of America and other countries touched by the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, but however illogical it is, it is the reality that we live in right now. Yes, there are bi-racial and multi-racial folks out there who are questioning this now. However, black folks who could and did “pass” for white; black folks who could and didn’t “pass” for white; Native Americans who saw their tribal heritage disappear due to arbitrary rules of race designation; and just plain ol’ black folks in general have been debating race and arbitrary race designations for as long as America has had them. Back in the early part of the 20th Century, Langston Hughes and other black artists wrote creatively questioning why blacks couldn’t just be called “American.” Questioning arbitrary designations of racial identity that have been imposed on folks who would like to retain their right to identify themselves as they see fit is nothing new. Black folks have been doing this for as long as racial distinctions have been imposed on them. And this struggle to identify oneself and to question so-called “official” terms of identification is encoded in the term “black.” Does this make sense?

I will say again, in no way am I being disrespectful or dismissive of your right to identify yourself. However, I would suggest that if you haven’t already done so that you study the history that I’ve been talking about in this thread. I’m not saying that you are, but if do decide that you want to call yourself another arbitrary color like “blue” as opposed to “black” or “white” or as “mixed” or whatever, then that is fine by me. I don’t know any other way to explain what I mean to you. As far as I’m concerned, if you want to continue seeing offense where none was intended, then I have no control over that. It’s a free country, and you are welcome to think whatever you like just as I’m free to disagree with your misinterpretation and then let it go.

Celestina: Are you always this hypocritical, or is just when it comes to matters of race? You keep saying that you don’t want to quibble over semantics or meanings, yet you keep doing just that, to wit:

**"I do disagree with your dismissing what is reality based in historical fact as a “perception.”

“What I take issue with is your calling what is documented as historical fact—that “black” does mean “mixed” (See tomndebb’s linked cites for an example.)—as a “perception”

“I am well aware that within the black community, there are a plethora of ways to define what “black” means”

"If you study the history of “black” as a term of self-identification, you will see how it is not just a “perception,” but rather a historical fact. "

"I’m not saying that you are, but if do decide that you want to call yourself another arbitrary color like “blue” as opposed to “black” or “white” or as “mixed” or whatever, then that is fine by me. "**

So when you call yourself black, that is a historical fact, but when I choose to identify myself otherwise, I’m being just as arbitrary as if I chose to call myself blue? This is meant to be inoffensive? Somehow I think you’re being about as sincere when you say this as you are when you claim not to want to discuss meanings, then spend several paragraphs discussing meanings.

According to the two most prominent on-line dictionaries, black and mixed have distinct meanings. The “fact” that black means mixed seems not to have reached everyone.

From Dictionary.com

black

  1. often Black
    a. Of or belonging to a racial group having brown to black skin, especially one of African origin: the Black population of South Africa.
    b. Of or belonging to an American ethnic group descended from African peoples having dark skin; African-American.
    mixed Pronunciation Key (mkst)
    adj.

a. Descended from two or more races or breeds.
b. Crossbred.

From Merriam-Webster.com

black:
2 a : having dark skin, hair, and eyes : SWARTHY <the black Irish> b (1) often capitalized : of or relating to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin <black Americans> (2) : of or relating to the Afro-American people or their culture <black literature> <a black college> <black pride> <black studies> (3) : typical or representative of the most readily attended parts of black culture <tried to play blacker jazz>

mixed:

2 : to enter into relations : ASSOCIATE
3 : CROSSBREED: to cross (two varieties or breeds) within the same species

I would generally agree with your statement that the meanings are not the same to everyone.

There is, however, historical precedent for the notion that the word black (or colored or Negro) was applied to “mixed” people with as little as 1/64th part sub-Saharan African ancestors (later backed down to 1/32 part for indians) . When Dr. Plecker got done “correcting” the Virginia birth certificates, a person with one black and 31 white great-great-great-grandparents was, in the legal rolls of Virginia, black, not mixed–for “one drop” of blood put a person into the “colored” category. (And once Plecker showed that he could find the records to do that in Virginia, several of the other Southern states began following the example set by Virginia, rendering all the “mixed” people in those states as black (or “colored” in the nomenclature of the time).

tomndebb: No disagreement here. The word black has been applied that way, and continues to be by many. It is a usage developed by racists to further the goal of denying “undesirable” people their rights.

Had celestina phrased her comments in a similar manner, I would have raised no objection. However, to claim that it is a “fact” that they are the same is to implicitly deny any other usage. It is this that I refuse to accept.

celestina: yes, it is a fact that people of mixed ethnicity have been described as black; it is not a fact that people of mixed ethnicity are black. If the former is what you meant, I withdraw my objection and apologize for the overreaction. If the latter, which is how I interpreted your statement, was the intended meaning, I stand by my objection.

Number Six, what semantic point are you talking about? It is a fact that when the term black is used in the U.S. to describe an American, this person is mixed. In what instance is this not true?

The first definition does not apply to the debate at hand (and if it did, even these people are “mixed”. But I said earlier, I do not want to get sidetracked by another “what is race” debate.)

As for the second definition: African-Americans are mixed. Cultrally, historically and ethnically. So celestina’s statement-- that you can call yourself whatever you want, the fact is is that if you are black, you are mixed-- is true. Why would she need to apologize? And why would you take offense when none was intended?

That’s what I don’t understand either.

I think celestina has a point. For instance, Tiger Woods has every right to perceive himself to be caublasian, but if he were described in a police line-up within North America, it is a fact that he would be deemed “black”. It would not be a fact that he would be deemed mixed or Asian.

In other words, what we perceive ourselves to be does not translate into what we are classified as by society.

This reality does not mean that Tiger Woods can’t define himself the way he wants to. It just means that he can’t expect everyone to accept that he’s not black. Because of the weird way this country works on matters of race, Tiger Woods is considered as black as someone who isn’t “mixed”. This is what celestina is talking about when she says “black” for “mixed” is a historical fact.

[VERY BIG SIGH]

Now I’m really confoosed. :frowning: I’ve gone from being “dismissive” and “disrespectful” to being a “hypocrite.” Gosh, I’d hate to think what I’d be called if I really was trying to be all of those things. Satan incarnate, perhaps? [giggle]*

tomndebb, Biggirl, & monstro, thank you. :slight_smile: Y’all are real Sweeties and patient too for clarifying further still what for some reason I’m failing to convey to Number Six.

*In case it’s unclear, in the first paragraph I’m being silly and expressing incredulity and confusion at the behavior I’ve been accused of committing in this thread.

Number Six said: “It is a usage developed by racists to further the goal of denying “undesirable” people their rights.”

I would amend your statement to say: “It is a usage developed by racists to further the goal of denying people they deemed “undesirable” their rights.” Do you see the difference? There was not nor is there now anything inherently “undesirable” about black folks. That is a value judgement that has been traditionally placed on black folks, and unfortunately there are still folks in the 21st Century who view black folks as “undesirable.” Otherwise, yes, that is how “black” historically has been used; however, with the 1950s Civil Rights Movement and particularly the Black Arts Movement and the Black Power Movement of the 1960s, “black” is a term that has been embraced by many black folks, who view it as a positive term connoting solidarity and pride in the history of black folks and their various Native American, European, and African heritages.

Back to the OP. My last semester of college, I had a lot of flexibility in course selection. Outside of the one class I needed to graduate, I took classes within my histroy major that interested me. One of them was an trial course that dealt with this very topic. The majority of our study was based on the way Latin America deals with the race and mixed race. After a semester of study, debate, and papers, we really couldn’t come to a consensus on this issue. The closest thing we could come to a consensus on is that the United States has a paradigm for racial classification that is about to shift. Nobody knows what that shift is going to look like yet, and it is going to be years before we do. Debate like this one is necessary, but it is a very emotionally charged topic, one where brothers can come down on opposite sides of an argument. This type of a discussion starts to create the new paradigm, but nobody is going to find THE answer within this conversation. Hell, I am of mixed blood, and I don’t even know where I stand on the issue.

The one thing to keep in mind is that sub-segmenting the racial categories as they exist now isn’t going to solve any racial issues. While it allows people to have pride in who they are, it also creates new levels to the racial issue, and helps to fragment solidarity amongst the races as we understand them today, making them weaker at achieving change.

And as an aside, being a mixed blood of any type does come with its own unique challenges, from experience. At the right time and place, you can have both the races that you consist of seeing you as the enemy. Being a minority can be bad, but at least you have your community. At times, mixed bloods have no community but their family. At the same times, mixed bloods can find acceptance at times when the minority cannot, to be fair.

Back to the OP. My last semester of college, I had a lot of flexibility in course selection. Outside of the one class I needed to graduate, I took classes within my histroy major that interested me. One of them was an trial course that dealt with this very topic. The majority of our study was based on the way Latin America deals with the race and mixed race. After a semester of study, debate, and papers, we really couldn’t come to a consensus on this issue. The closest thing we could come to a consensus on is that the United States has a paradigm for racial classification that is about to shift. Nobody knows what that shift is going to look like yet, and it is going to be years before we do. Debate like this one is necessary, but it is a very emotionally charged topic, one where brothers can come down on opposite sides of an argument. This type of a discussion starts to create the new paradigm, but nobody is going to find THE answer within this conversation. Hell, I am of mixed blood, and I don’t even know where I stand on the issue.

The one thing to keep in mind is that sub-segmenting the racial categories as they exist now isn’t going to solve any racial issues. While it allows people to have pride in who they are, it also creates new levels to the racial issue, and helps to fragment solidarity amongst the races as we understand them today, making them weaker at achieving change.

And as an aside, being a mixed blood of any type does come with its own unique challenges, from experience. At the right time and place, you can have both the races that you consist of seeing you as the enemy. Being a minority can be bad, but at least you have your community. At times, mixed bloods have no community but their family. At the same times, mixed bloods can find acceptance at times when the minority cannot, to be fair.

Back to the OP. My last semester of college, I had a lot of flexibility in course selection. Outside of the one class I needed to graduate, I took classes within my histroy major that interested me. One of them was an trial course that dealt with this very topic. The majority of our study was based on the way Latin America deals with the race and mixed race. After a semester of study, debate, and papers, we really couldn’t come to a consensus on this issue. The closest thing we could come to a consensus on is that the United States has a paradigm for racial classification that is about to shift. Nobody knows what that shift is going to look like yet, and it is going to be years before we do. Debate like this one is necessary, but it is a very emotionally charged topic, one where brothers can come down on opposite sides of an argument. This type of a discussion starts to create the new paradigm, but nobody is going to find THE answer within this conversation. Hell, I am of mixed blood, and I don’t even know where I stand on the issue.

The one thing to keep in mind is that sub-segmenting the racial categories as they exist now isn’t going to solve any racial issues. While it allows people to have pride in who they are, it also creates new levels to the racial issue, and helps to fragment solidarity amongst the races as we understand them today, making them weaker at achieving change.

And as an aside, being a mixed blood of any type does come with its own unique challenges, from experience. At the right time and place, you can have both the races that you consist of seeing you as the enemy. Being a minority can be bad, but at least you have your community. At times, mixed bloods have no community but their family. At the same times, mixed bloods can find acceptance at times when the minority cannot, to be fair.