Not in the time period we’re discussing. Today, perhaps, but you’re going to find a lot of dissent even now.
I’m happy to call you whatever you want me to call you - white, black, checkered or weirdo. My ex-father in law, OTOH, would stop speaking to you if he found out you “lied” to him, even by omission. Yet he has black - uh, acquaintances (I wouldn’t say real friends), who he likes just fine. It would be the “betrayal” he’d have issues with.
Not necessarily, IMO. First you have to ask why this person who looks white would be considered “Black” in the first place. Let’s pretend its because one of their grandparents was black.
Would most people mentally classify a person as “White” who had such a heritage? They might, if they didn’t know about the grandparent. But if they knew, I don’t think they would.
And I think in the hypothetical “Monstro sitting on the main floor” I wouldn’t out her. I particularly wouldn’t out her if she’d been passing for a while in a “lynching state” between 1920- 1968ish. That could get her killed. i.e. abandoning you to the balcony is rude. I don’t think it passes muster to be unethical.
In the time period we’re talking about (Jim Crow South), anyone with 1 black grandparent and 3 white grandparents would be considered black.
Today, that person would probably be considered “mixed” by most people, unless he or she made a point to self-identify as black. That might vary depending on the region we’re talking about, but certainly in CA (and other western states) that would be the case, and I think most places in the North, too.
I had a light-skinned black (actually biracial, but she’d have been considered a “Negro” during the Jim Crow era) friend in college who inadvertently passed as a Latina all the time. She had a lot of funny stories about Anglo guys trying to impress her with their best high school Spanish, and at least one about a Latino guy who called her a disgrace to her culture for not being able to speak Spanish herself. So I can believe there were some light-skinned black people who could have passed as Latino in many situations by simply not correcting the assumptions of others.
No cite for this, but I’ve heard that a lot of people who “passed” back in the day claimed to be part Native American. (This may even have been technically true, as a fair number of African Americans have some Native American ancestry.) It’s my impression that there was fairly little stigma associated with having one of those legendary Indian princesses for a grandmother, as long as you spoke English, looked mostly white, and were thoroughly assimilated into mainstream white culture.
But even in that time period, a lot of folks who “really were white” did, in fact, have some black ancestry (more than the proverbial “one drop”). Most of them didn’t know it, maybe, but is that really a significant difference?
I am a light-skinned, blue-eyed, blondish-haired white girl who has nothing but European ancestors to my knowledge - well, we don’t know anything about my Dad’s biological father, but my Dad sure looks white as heck - and a very European-looking family, and yet I get asked if I am ‘mixed’ white/black regularly. In my general area (Philadelphia and burbs), many people are from mixed racial and ethnic backgrounds, so it’s a common question to ask someone who doesn’t look to be straight white or black or whatever, and not usually considered impolite. It’s interesting the different reactions I get when I tell them I don’t have any non-white ancestry to my knowledge.
I can see where people would get it. I have big curly hair, light yellow skin which tans dark gold, gray-blue eyes, and rounded/soft features, with a much wider bridge to my nose than my sisters, who have similar noses. Any of these traits go right back to either one of my parents, neither of whom has ever been asked if they have black ancestry.
But anyway, to those of you who are saying that any child of a parent who looks white enough to pass is going to themselves pass - I don’t pass sometimes, in some people’s opinion, and it’s hard to get ‘whiter’ than me (I’m pretty sure…). I live in a place and time where no one really gives a shit what my ethnic background is, but apparently stick out enough that people have to ask.
And even if someone is culturally white, identifies as white, and looks white to most people; sometimes people make assumptions and ask questions based on appearance only. In a different time and place than the one I’m in (particualrly one where I worked out of doors and didn’t wear sunscreen), my appearance alone would make some people suspicious and might warrant an accusation of false passing…
I think it would be mean for me to abandon you at the movie theater if we were supposed to be companions. By outing me, you may get me arrested or beaten up, but chances are I’d be tossed out of the theater and never allowed inside again. Assuming the latter consequence, I would think it would be a small but deserved price to pay for abandoning family during an oppressive time and place. If either of the former happened, though, then I think your outing me would be totally dickish. Of course, you wouldn’t know what would happen to me before opening your mouth. If you knew there was a chance that I could get arrested and/or beaten, then I think it would be unethical for you to out me, even if I am an ass for abandoning you. If you didn’t know, then it wouldn’t be unethical.
Taking things up a notch, if you caught me sitting in the main seating area and we had been estranged for many years because I wanted to pass and you didn’t want to, and you just happened to see me, from your lofty position in the balcony, with my white husband and kids (sounds like the makings of a good book, right?), then I think we’re stepping into an even stickier situation. I think you’d have every right to be pissed off at me, sitting there all la-ti-dah and fancy-free. But what do you have to gain by outing me, except spite? It’s not like I’m really harming you by sitting where I am, but you could very well ruin my family and my life by exposing me. So that would make outing me unethical (since it involves innocents). My action to pass would be emotionally hurtful to you, but I don’t think it would ruin your life to the same degree that outing me would do to mine.
But if I’m running for Miss KKK, waving a sign on TV saying “Kill all the darkies!”, please out me. Out me before I can do anymore harm.
Still playing devil’s advocate…
You wouldn’t be harming me directly, true. By by reaping the benefits of passing as white, you’d be validating the same system that keeps me (and other black people) oppressed. So it’s not as simple as saying that you’re not harming me.
But it’s weird, because when it’s comes to other things, I don’t feel the same way at all. If you were planning to pass to get into a college, for example, I’d be supportive (even if I wasn’t thrilled to know I couldn’t get that break). Probably because I’d realize that with a college education, you’d be in a better position to have your privilege trickle down to others. Getting the good seats at the theater, on the hand, is a privilege that benefits you and you only.
But one could twist it around and say that by sitting in the balcony, I’m still validating the system. I’m not protesting anything, that’s for damned sure. I’m “staying in my place” and “being a good negro”. Me sitting in the balcony harms my dignity and doesn’t help black people at all. But me sitting in the main seating area benefits me but doesn’t affect anyone else. The negroes are still going to be in the balcony even if my white-looking ass is up there or not.
What would be righteous would be to not go to the theater at all and refuse to support the stupid system of segregation. But since a boycott of one person isn’t going to do anything, why not subvert the system…even if it is just for myself?
(Lord knows I wouldn’t be able to pass at the movies. I’d give myself away by talking to the screen!)
I don’t know, it just strikes me as slimy in a way that I can’t put my finger on.
Like, if there was nothing but white people and you in the theater, I’d be okay with you passing and not sitting in the balcony. That’s you giving the finger to society. Ha ha, the joke’s on them.
But when I imagine a bunch of black people being there, and they’re all made to sit in the hot uncomfortable balcony, while you’re given the nod to sit with the “decent white folk” in the cushy seats, and you gladly take advantage of that…I dunno. It’s less like you giving the finger to society and more like you giving the finger to black people. Because you’re not seeking solidarity with them in their collective indignity.
So I see the first scenario as you being subversive to a segregated system, and the second as you being a sellout. I know my logic isn’t rock solid, but that’s my gut impression.
I am reminded about a story of the Delany sisters (Samuel R Delany’s aunts). They passed in order to attend the first New York showing of Birth of a Nation. Then they vamndalised the screen and ran away 
Here’s how I understand the genetics of the whole situation. To simplify greatly, say each parent has a deck of cards. Red means white and black means, well, black. If one parent (the “passer”) has mostly red and some black, odds are that he’s gonna toss out a red card anyway. If the other parent has only red cards, the kid gets two reds. Even if the passer tosses out a black card, momma still only has red, so the kid gets one of each. He could be regarded as a passer, like daddy. However, if momma has some black ancestry, even as little as one black card in her deck, there exists a greater-than-zero chance of the kid getting two black cards.
Like I said, this is simplified greatly as real genetics doesn’t involve just two cards but dozens/hundreds/thousands.
I think it is more accurate to say that a passer looks “white” because his or her genes interact with each other and the environment to create a phenotype that looks “white” according to the standards held by folks in their specific society.
But if their genes are recombined with someone else (regardless of that someone else’s racial ancestry), the resulting phenotype may not be so “white-looking”. It may be much more racially ambigious. And in the time period we’re talking about, looking racially ambiguous is sufficient to get the “OMG, NEGRO!!” treatment because of the one-drop rule.
There is a very low bar to “looking black”. All you need is a little broadness to your nostrils, a little crinkle in your hair, a little extra bone in your cheek, a little extra tone to your skin, and suddenly a race-conscious individual has all they need to question your pedigree. It is easier to pass as white nowadays because most people aren’t THAT race-conscious, and it is easier to blend into the diverse crowd of faces that make up the American populace. But back in the day, this was not the case in most places.
The focus on the genetics of both parents misrepresents why someone would be understandably afraid, IMHO. Passers weren’t afraid of creating “throwbacks” based on the non-zero probability of mating with another passer. Passers were afraid because they knew there was nothing stopping them from producing a non-passable kid regardless of their mate’s heritage.
I’m guessing there were more than a handful of white folks with 100% European ancestry who nonetheless had their reputations tainted because someone of importance questioned their racial purity on the basis of phenotype. Thus, it should be understandable why someone with more admixture would be afraid that the same thing would happen to them or their children. Racists are crazy. Race is crazy.
Bumping because I thought I’d share a recent experience that bears passing (heh) resemblance to the thread topic.
A month ago I went shopping with my husband and baby girl. In the checkout line, I stood behind a white woman and *her *baby girl–who was as dark skinned as your typical non-biracial African American. I instantly assumed the baby was adopted (an assumption I kept to myself) because I saw no resemblance between them, but after a few minutes of small talk, she let it be known that this was her biological baby. She wasn’t explicit about it, but the conclusion was there.
After we left, I turned to my (white) husband and commented upon this revelation. “I wonder if she’s sensitive about people making the wrong assumption? I wonder if she feels like has to preempt certain questions? I wonder how that must feel?”
Then he looks at me and then looks at my daughter. “You know someone could easily ask you that question, right?” :smack:
People who passed back in the day could have been paranoid about their children simply because people see their kids as an extension of themselves. My daughter probably looks white to most people, but I don’t see her as white; I see her as I see myself. If I wanted to distance myself from black people, having “black” kids would be nerve-wracking, even if those kids looked white to most people.
I don’t think anyone is arguing there wouldn’t be any fear just that with modern hindsight it’s not a very reasonable likelihood that a passing black woman and a Scotsman are going to make a suspiciously blackish baby. The ignorance of the times would make the fear reasonable regardless.
On the OP, I’m white but in that situation I would totally go for it. If I had a good relationship with my family, I would assuage any guilty feelings by sending money back home. If I had a blackish baby, I’d deal with it somehow. No way I’m spending my life as a second class citizen because I might have a problem with the deception in 10 years or whatever. Nor would I give up a real life because others of my race are unable to make the same move.