Is the “1/16” rule different than the “one drop” rule? I’m confused.
I don’t know.
When talking about racial assignments based on appearance, celebrities are the wrong group to focus on-- especially female celebrities. Too much make up, hair styling, and cosmetic surgery thrown into the mix. Obviously they are the ones that we’re all going to be familiar with, so it’s hard to drag non-celebrities into the discussion, but I still think they are not the ones to use to determine how societal rules work wrt race.
I wonder if that’s because you’re black though. It seems like black people are able to detect blackness with a bit more ease. No cite for it, though.
I almost feel like making a quiz called “Who has a white parent” featuring photos of my family members.
Yes. One Drop says that if you have one ancestor who is black, you are also black. The one-sixteenth rule is why there are terms like “octaroon” and “quadroon.” As I said, I know someone who has found out that he is 1/32nd black, and I don’t think anyone would consider him black at all.
But I think the point is that 1/16 is at the limit of resolution for most people. Someone who is 1/16 African and 15/16 European is almost certainly going to look European. And it’s easy to hide or not even know about one your great-great-grandparents. It’s like any measurement you make-- the instrument you use never has infinite accuracy. So, the “one drop rule” really means any detectable amount. For all practical purposes, that’s going to be around the 1/8, 1/16, or 1/32 level.
“One-sixteenth” African ancestry was actually the legal cutoff for the so-called* one drop rule in some jurisdicitions. In some places it was 1/32th. In others, it wasn’t really quantified. It just was understood to be any known African ancestry.
I don’t either. He probably looks no different than any typical white person. Unless he makes a point of talking about his ancestry whereever he goes and calls himself a black man, I don’t see how anyone would consider him black.
**Please please please let’s pray this conversation doesn’t lead to us talking about literal drops of blood. I can’t handle that again. *
I don’t pray and I am still with you on that hope.
Did anyone catch “African American Lives” on PBS last night? This was a 2nd installment in Louis Gates’ program where he traces the geneology of some famous Blacks both through historical records and DNA testing. I thought this one was better than the first episode, especially in how they treated the DNA analysis (not oversimplifying a complex subject, but not getting overly technical either). Not that the 1st show wasn’t good, I just thought this one was better.
At any rate, you got the the chance to see all sorts of phenotypical variations in some large, extended families. Some of those folks were awfully White looking, if you ask me. It was also interesting how many families thought they had Native American ancestry, but didn’t. And if anyone wants to know, Tina Tuner is 1/3 White! 
I saw it, John. I thought it was interesting how only Tom Joyner had Native American ancestry, and it was a smidgeon. It makes me wonder just how much the Indian stuff in my own family is a myth. I know my mother is more vocal about claiming Native American ancestry than the European.
I also thought it was interesting how some Native Americans owned slaves (like Don Cheadle’s family) and didn’t think Emancipation applied to them.
The *concept * goes way back, the term itself is modern. OED’s earliest cite is 1976, and that reads as if it may well be the original.
I find the picture amusing:
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/8-barack-obama/
That gave me a chuckle, and incidentally I went back and read this thread. Very interesting stuff. Usually I stay away from DtC threads because I know better; I don’t have the motivation or wherewithal to keep up with you guys when you enter into debate mode. But good reading!
Really? Why? It looked pretty dumb, but then I can’t stand Friends. I could see putting him in Cubs fans regalia or in the act of smothering a sandwich in mayonnaise (something else I don’t like personally) but what does Friends have to do with being white? Was that known as a white only viewership?
Yes, absolutely. They were on opposite “Living Single,” a show with an all-Black cast, and the age demograpic was decidedly split among racial lines between the two shows. Friends also used to get criticized for being a show about urban-dwelling young people, and not having any Black folks in the cast.
Are you serious?
Oh, ok. Thank you.
Yes, I hated the show and never watched it. I never thought of it and “What white folk liked”.
Jim
I think the criticism was more over the fact that there never seemed to be any black people in New York City on the show. I think there were a whole bunch of shows at the time with the same problem (and the same demographic).