I’m with monstro. Once people of mixed race start mixing it up, strange things can happen. A friend of mine is visibly white (no one would ever look at her and call her black) but her mother is visibly black (half black, half white) and her uncle is “black as the ace of spades.” So she grew up “black” because her family was “black”, and she was subject to the same harassment and discrimination and nastiness that inspired AA regulations in the first place.
Aren’t there enough threads around talking about race as a social construct? It’s still a big deal when Halle Berry wins an Oscar because she’s the first “black” woman to do it. And Tiger Woods, and so on. Meaning, if the world treats you like you’re black, then you’re black.
Don’t know how they’d put a box for that on college admission forms, though.
Most days people have no clue that they are black, or even mixed for that matter. But they have still been subjected to the same ammount of racism I have as a someone who is darker skinned.
When I was a minikid wishing to be white one day after some kids had been callling me the N word, My mom told me that it only takes a drop to be black.
The state of Iowa has an open enrollment policy with regards to public schools. Essentially, you can enroll your kid in any public school you wish.
However…there is a loophole. School districts are allowed to have racial “diversity” policies that they can enforce by refusing kids of an “under represented” race from switching to another public school district.
Davenport just instituted such a policy. If you self identify as “white” and wish to enroll your kid in a neighboring public school, too damn bad. If you self identify as black and wish to leave the district…adios.
I suspect an astonishing number of “students of color” to suddenly materialize in the heartland.
It depends on how much you’re claiming and how enmeshed in the culture you are. There most certaintly is a stigma attached to Native Americans in some places in this country. The closer you “look it”, the more stigma is attached to you.
But you’re right, John Mace. There’s a lot of blond-haired, blue-eyed people walking around claiming Native American ancestry. But strangely, you don’t find the same enthusiasm for African ancestry. Even people who LOOK black try to downplay it. Could it be that this explains why “half blacks” are not treated any differently than “full blacks”?
Just what is a full black anyway? Both of my parents are black, but like them, I have light skin and a mixture of features that are not uniquely African. Like most black Americans, we are descended not only from Africans, but from Europeans and Native Americans. There are few black Americans who are of “pure” stock. Should AA be only reserved for them, since all the rest of us share bloodlines with the oppressor? Should AA be only reserved for blacks who look “black”? Well, that means someone who looks like Nia Long–who’s biracial–would be favored over someone who looks like Julian Bond, who’s not.
Either keep AA or get rid of it. But don’t try to use equations when it comes to race. It will frustrate you every time.
Yes, I guess there are a few places where “Indians” are given a hard time, but if I claim to be 1/4 Indian and look white, it’s hard for me to believe I’m going to hear one discouraging word on a college campus.
The idea of mixed racial people and AA is pretty intractable. As you said, most if not all blacks in the US are part white. I’ve seen studies showing the “average” racial mixing to be about 25% for blacks. Obviously, that number will be going up over time.
San Francisco has had a similar policy for years. It’s more complex there, because many ethnic groups are represented. Parents learned to game the system, so the School Board introduced a policy limiting each student to two changes in ethnicity.
No legal definition. I’ve always wondered what happens if a white someone from Africa moves here, and has a kid, and they claim to be African-American.
I can just see the bureaucracy on this one:
“No Mrs. Martinez, your son has already been Black, Mexican, and Peurto Rican, so you cannot now be Asian.”
Its even funnier if the family comes in and the Dad is Clack/Chinese and the Mom is Puerto-Rican/Mexican/White.
Eye color: As far as we know, there is not just one gene for eye color. I’m not sure if it’s even known how many genes are involved. This isn’t like the simple AA and bb genetic crosses that we all learned about in junior high school.
Race genes: Geneticists will tell you that there are certain markers more common in one race than another, but no one so far has identified the suite of genes that make a person look like a particular racial group. In fact most geneticists will tell you that race does not exist on the genetic level.
If you do some searching on resent threads, there’s a LOT of dicsussion on this topic. I think getting more into it here is WAY off topic, so I’ll leave it at that.
In the United States, each “nation” or “tribe” of Native Americans that has an incorportated government sets its own standards for membership. Some use a “blood quantum” (very commonly 25% or 1/4, but it can range from half to a very tiny fraction of documented ancestry). Some trace the lines Matrilineally (as the Hebrews) or Patrilineally. A few grant citizenship to descendants of “enrolled” people even if their parents and grandparents did not claim Indian ancestry. It all depends on the group. In reality, especially in the eastern United States, there are many Indians/Native Americans who look completely “white” or “black”. In the West, the Native population tends to be less mixed.
I do believe now, a person who is not a documented member of a tribe or nation can still ‘self identify’ as an Native American. For instance, I know some Mexican-Americans who are not connected to any Native United States group choosing to identify as “Indian” instead of “Hispanic/White” citing the fact that most Mexicans are of mixed or even full Indian ancestry.
As far as “black”, many states, especially in the South, defined this by statute until the 1960’s or so. It was usually set at 1/8th, but in some states any trace of ‘black’ ancestry defined one as black. Of course over time, many families where were of white appearance “passed”. In the times of slavery, birth to a slave mother was usually grounds for slave (hence “black”) status, even if the paternal ancestry was white.
As you probably know, “Scotch/Irish” refers to people originally from Scotland who were settled, oftimes forcibly, in Ireland by The People From the Land of Bad Teeth, and then later scampered off to America.
As to the AmerInd heritage…in the tribe, I am called “Dances with Vulvas.”
Rats! In the interests of fighting ignorance (in this case my own), I’ll state for the record that I made a boo boo.
It appears that there is a definition of maori (used by the Maori Affairs Act and the Treaty of Waitangi Act) that states that a maori is someone who is a descendent of a maori (and wishes to identify as such).
So, this is rather like the “one drop” rule except that one has to identify as maori too. So, I could be 1/128th maori and identify as maori and I would be, but if I was 127/128th maori (though I’m not sure there’s anyone that pureblooded left) and identify as european, or polynesian, or whatever I could. A little odd perhaps, but there you have it.
I now return you to your regularly schedueld AA discussion.
The town where I live has people of every ethnicity you can think of. The school system tries to go to great lengths to assure that black, hispanic and “non-hispanic whites” are as evenly distributed as possible among the various elementary schools. How they distinguish is beyond me, although I think they use surnames to identify the hispanics. At one time there was a family living near me who had 4 red-haired, freckled children. The mother was definitely of Irish descent. The father certainly looked as northern European as any other I’ve seen. His first name was “Adolph.” But the surname was “Gonzalez,” so I’m pretty sure all the children “counted” as hispanic. Go figure. They were certainly not disadvantaged in any way. Yet I suppose there are situations where they could have gotten preference under affirmative action.
The first time I heard a.a. described, it was not in terms of quotas or preference. The idea was simply that an employer should not only refrain from screening out people of non-European ancestry, but should also proactively seek out non-Europeans to give them the same opportunity. Seemed reasonable to me. It obviously has different implications now.
One of the people I worked with back then was a black woman who was intelligent, hard-working and very good at her job. All she needed was to not be excluded arbitrarily. Later, I was asked by someone to whom she was applying for a new job if she was really good, or just one of those “affirmative action” people. The intention of giving an equal chance had devolved into a negative connotarion, since it was assumed that, being black in a formerly mostly-white situation, she had gotten there through preference, not through merit.
