posted January 23, 2010 07:32 PM         

quote:

---

White is white, a little color in it and it's not so white anymore. How wrong is to not call someone white who is apperently a mixture of colors?

---

Our society puts an emphasis on being white. In a sense, "white" is a like a fine wine, and all else is water, and someone not fully white is seen as like watered down wine. White is a "state of grace" so to speak that excludes all others.

Beyond that, it's not "nonwhite" that such people are called, but rather they're shunted to a SPECIFIC color (which may or may not agree with white culture). And while skin color doesn't really matter more than hair color from an OBJECTIVE stance, it does matter from a SUBJECTIVE stance and so it becomes important through societal stupidity.

quote:

---

If the skin color doesn't matter in your world, you shouldn't be offended being called any color. How does that make a difference anyway?

---

It's not the color, it's the racial identity. And that's something that's imposed by society, whether or not you go along with it.

quote:

---

I have a feeling you feel ashamed of your african heritage and that's why you get upset when someone calls you black

---

Far be it for me to decide what Glaucus feels.

However, in response I'd like to say that my having been around multiracials (and also those who were adopted by another race and raised as such) my guess would be that he feels "homeless" so to speak, with rejection possible from both sides, and no one--of any race--likely to fully accept him as too many place far too much importance on such trivial matters. And then there's the whole matter of being black means additional burdens are imposed on you (and being biracial also means you stand a good chance of not getting the community support many blacks have in compensation).

And I'd think Obama's acceptance despite his open biraciality gave him hope that society was changing, but as Obama gets shunted with all blacks, it detracts from his biraciality, which tells people like Glaucus are likely to be ostracized by all sides because you still have to "pick one" and "stick with it"...and what happens when you can't, because none fully apply? Then you don't fully belong...anywhere. Or, you can pick one, creating a foundation that's a lie that you probably feel could be exposed and destroyed at any time...and a pretty stupid lie because society is being stupid at that.

As a society, we give enough lip service to say we know better...but refuse to move past that lip service.

I also get the impression that Glaucus doesn't like how his mother suffered because of his appearances, either, especially as his mom caught a lot of flak for essentially giving birth to him, implying he was some huge mistake and/or that his very existence is offensive to society. That would bother me, too, a lot, no matter how much BS I thought the criteria used to judge (and condemn) was.

posted January 23, 2010 09:41 PM         

Barack Obama looks mixed Black and White to me. When I see pictures of his mother,Stanley Ann Dunham as well as her father, I could see where he get a lot of his looks from. He resembles a lot like his mother's side of the family. I am the same way His eyes are a lot like his mother's. His nose is similar. I saw pictures of his African father, and I don't believe that he looks much like him. His skin is light brown/dark tan like many people born to a white mother and black father just like myself. He looks mixed black and white to me.
As for Tiger Woods, definitely looks black and asian to me. I definitely see it in his eyes. He looks like he could be mistaken for Pacific Islander. He doesn't want to be pinned down as black either. I can't blame him. He embraces all his heritages. That's why he referred to himself as Cablanasin.

"White is white, a little color in it and it's not so white anymore. How wrong is to not call someone white who is apperently a mixture of colors?
If the skin color doesn't matter in your world, you shouldn't be offended being called any color. How does that make a difference anyway? I have a feeling you feel ashamed of your african heritage and that's why you get upset when someone calls you black."

I don't feel ashamed of my African heritage. I am not ashamed of any of my heritages. I am not just Black. I don't fit inside a racial box at all. A lot of people can tell that I am mixed. People have mistook me for other things like Arab,Pacific Islander,and Hispanic in the past. Especially,Hispanics tend to think that I am Hispanic. Most people can tell that I am mixed black and white. I don't want to acknowledge only my black father's heritage. I don't want people to acknowledge only his heritage. I also want to acknowledge my white mother's heritage. I want people to acknowledge my mother's heritage. I want people acknowledge all of me and not just part of me.

Why is that a mixed person with Black,White or other races accused of being ashamed of being Black because they want to acknowledge all their heritages and not just their black heritage? I am not the only multiracial person who thinks the way that I do. That's why 2000 Census allowed people to pick multiple boxes for race. Many multiracial Americans pushed for that. 2.4 percent of Americans in the US Census did pick multiple boxes. I was one of them. In the 2010 Census, I am going to pick multiple boxes again. I am not going to deny any part of me.

Why should I have to accept the one drop rule which was created to prevent race mixing in the first place,especially the interracial relationship laws.
As far as I am concerned, the one drop rule is non-existent since the June 12 1967 Loving vs. Virginia Supreme Court Ruling led to all interracial relationship laws being strucked down. The one drop rule was a racist concept created by White supremacists. I am not going to accept that law. I am not going to let people define me by some outdated racial laws.

Dervish understands where I am coming from.
Also my mother raised me to acknowledge all my heritages. She marked down multiple race boxes on the form for race when she enrolled me in high school, saying "This stuff is stupid" because they only said pick one for race. I love my mother,and I want to acknowledge my heritage from her. I loved my maternal grandfather who saw the Portuguese in every one of his children, referring to them as little Portagees. My mother told me that he did that to all his grandchildren.

I don't want to be pinned down as a Scorpio but wanted people to acknowledge my whole chart,especially the Moon in Pisces which I shared with both my father and maternal grandfather. Now I don't believe in zodiac sign Astrology any more,and so none of that matters to me.

The hell with the status quo. I was born to go against it....... racially(multiracial),religious-wise(I don't belong to any organized religion, and I a member of an interfaith Unity church,neurological-wise(as in neurodivergent with Dyslexia,Dyspraxia,ADHD), and sexually (have high estrogen levels for male and don't fit male stereotype). I just don't fit in the box just like many other's don't.

Raymond

Sun conjunct South Eris Node.
Eris sextile Midheaven,North Lunar Node,and Vertex.

Uranus trine Midheaven and Vertex
Geocentric Uranus Node oppose Midheaven
Ascendant square Heliocentric Uranus Nodes.

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"

posted January 23, 2010 09:54 PM         

Well I have no Irish blood.
I am nearly 1/3 Native American.
On one census I was allowed to chose that because I was more than a 1/4. Was only allowed one choice.
Some of my ancestors were from Barbados,and black. Otherwise, yes, the balance of my heritage is European; German/Dutch/English/Scottish/Danish.
So am I supposed to pick only one race?
Am I supposed to go by my appearance which is mistaken for Irish which I definitely am not?
Obama does not look white or black to me. He is an obvious blend.

quote:

---

The small but vocal movement gained momentum in 1997 after golfer Tiger Woods proclaimed his race "Cablinasian" — for Caucasian, black, American Indian and Asian.

---

posted January 24, 2010 03:29 AM         

The one-drop rule is a historical colloquial term for a belief among some people in the United States that a person with any trace of African ancestry is black.

This notion of invisible/intangible membership in a racial group has seldom been applied to people of other ancestry. The concept has been chiefly applied to those of black African ancestry. As Langston Hughes wrote, "You see, unfortunately, I am not black. There are lots of different kinds of blood in our family. But here in the United States, the word 'Negro' is used to mean anyone who has any Negro blood at all in his veins. In Africa, the word is more pure. It means all Negro, therefore black. I am brown."[1]

History
[edit] Beginnings
Wiki letter w.svg This section requires expansion.
[edit] Legislation

The one-drop rule was a tactic in the U.S. South that codified and strengthened segregation and the disfranchisement of most blacks and many poor whites from 1890-1910. After Supreme Court decisions in Plessy v. Ferguson and related matters, White-dominated legislatures felt free to enact Jim Crow laws segregating Blacks in public places and accommodations, and passed other restrictive legislation. Legislatures sought to prevent interracial relationships to keep the white race "pure" long after slaveholders and overseers had taken advantage of enslaved women and fathered many mixed-race children.[citation needed]

Jim Crow laws reached their greatest influence during the decade from 1910–19. Tennessee adopted a one-drop statute in 1910, and Louisiana soon followed. Then Texas and Arkansas in 1911, Mississippi in 1917, North Carolina in 1923, Virginia in 1924, Alabama and Georgia in 1927, and Oklahoma in 1931. During this same period, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Utah retained their old "blood fraction" statutes de jure, but amended these fractions (one-sixteenth, one-thirtysecond) to be equivalent to one-drop de facto.[2]

Before 1930, individuals of mixed European and African ancestry were usually classed as mulattoes, sometimes as black and sometimes as white, depending on appearance. States often stopped worrying about ancestry at "the fourth degree" (great-great-great-grandparents).

Madison Grant of New York in The Passing of the Great Race wrote: "The cross between a white man and an Indian is an Indian; the cross between a white man and a Negro is a Negro; the cross between a white man and a Hindu is a Hindu; and the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew."[3]

In the case of Native American descendants with whites, the one-drop rule of definition was extended only so far as those with more than one-sixteenth Indian blood, due to what was known as the "Pocahontas exception." The "Pocahontas exception" existed because many influential Virginia families claimed descent from the American Indian Pocahontas of the colonial era. To avoid classifying such people as non-white, the Virginia General Assembly declared that a person could be considered white as long as they had no more than one-sixteenth Indian "blood".

Walter Plecker of Virginia[4] and Naomi Drake of Louisiana[5] insisted on trying to label families of mixed ancestry as Black. In 1924, Plecker wrote, "Two races as materially divergent as the White and Negro, in morals, mental powers, and cultural fitness, cannot live in close contact without injury to the higher." A subtext to this concept was the assumption that Blacks were somehow "improved" through White intermixture.

When the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed Virginia's ban on inter-racial marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), it declared Plecker's Virginia Racial Integrity Act and the one-drop rule unconstitutional.

Despite this holding, the one-drop theory retains influence in U.S. society, among people of all races. Multiracial individuals with visible European and African, and/or Native American ancestry are often still considered black or at least non-white, unless they explicitly declare themselves to be white. (After the Civil War, some people of mixed ancestry who "looked white" "passed" into the majority white community by not going into detail about their backgrounds.) The Melungeons have been a multiracial community of families that tended to marry "white" and move into majority culture.

Recent classifications

There are different ways of trying to assess the future of the one-drop rule in the United States. Such an evaluation depends on several factors, including how interracial parents label their children on the decennial U.S. censuses, scholarly opinions, and trends in affirmative action court cases.

From Reconstruction until about 1930, the children of black/white interracial parents and of mulatto parents were usually identified as mulatto. It is becoming increasingly common for people to identify themselves as multi-racial, bi-racial, mulatto or mixed, rather than as black or white. The fraction of mixed children census-labeled as solely black dropped from 62% in 1990 to 31% in 2000 (when respondents were allowed to select multiple races), suggesting that the one-drop theory and denying one's European ancestry are no longer accepted the way they used to be.

Despite the one-drop rule being held illegal (ever since the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 overturned the Racial Integrity Act of 1924), as recently as 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a decision by the federal Office for Dispute Resolution to refuse to hear a case attacking Louisiana’s racial classification criteria as applied to Susie Phipps (479 U.S. 1002) (In 1985, the fair-complexioned Phipps had checked "White" on her passport application. It was denied because, decades before on her birth certificate, a midwife had checked "colored" for one of her parents. Phipps sued, testifying that "this classification came as a shock, since she had always thought she was White, had lived as White, had twice married as White." 479 So. 2d 369). In addition, several authors and journalists have found it very profitable to "out" as black famous historical mulattoes and whites, who were regarded as white in their society, who self-identified as such, and who were culturally "European" (whether from Europe, the United States, or elsewhere), merely because they acknowledged having (often slight) African ancestry (Anatole Broyard, James Augustine Healy, Patrick Francis Healy, Michael Healy, Sir Peter Ustinov, Calvin Clark Davis, John James Audubon, Mother Henriette Delille — a Louisiana Creole).

Many scholars publishing on this topic today (including Naomi Zack, Neil Gotanda, Michael L. Blakey, Julie C. Lythcott-Haims, Christine Hickman, David A. Hollinger, Thomas E. Skidmore, G. Reginald Daniel, F. James Davis, Joe R. Feagin, Ian F. Haney-Lopez, Barbara Fields, Dinesh D'Souza, Joel Williamson, Mary C. Waters, Debra J. Dickerson) affirm that the one-drop rule is still strong in American popular culture. Affirmative action court cases, on the other hand, (when an apparently white person claims invisible black ancestry and claims federal entitlements and/or EEOC enforcement) are mixed. In some cases, such as the 1985 Boston firefighters Philip and Paul Malone's case, courts have held that such claimants are guilty of "racial fraud" despite their claim of having a black grandparent.

Other countries of the Americas
See also: Race in Brazil

The one-drop rule is nearly unique to the United States. People in most other countries tend to treat race less rigidly, and often self-identify racially in ways different than many people in the United States. Just as a person with physically recognizable sub-Saharan ancestry can claim to be black in the United States, someone with recognizable Caucasian ancestry may be considered white in Brazil.

In the caste system of colonial Spanish America, there was no barrier for interracial relationships while, at the same time, a racial hierarchy operated, combined with the Iberian purity of blood rules. As a result, the status of a mixed-race person would be determined by the proportion of "white blood" with an elaborate system of different names classifying the combinations of black, Amerindian and white. Inverse from this system, small drops of white blood were enough to position a person above "pure" non-whites. Furthermore, racial caste not only depended on ancestry or skin color, but also could be risen or lowered by the person's economical fortune. After the abolition of slavery and Latin American independence, the caste divisions blurred into wider groups.
A picture of Lena Horne for illustration.

In December 2002, the Washington Post ran a story on the one-drop theory. In the reporter's opinion: "Someone with Sidney Poitier's deep chocolate complexion would be considered white if his hair were straight and he made a living in a profession. That might not seem so odd, Brazilians say, when you consider that the fair-complexioned actresses Rashida Jones ("Boston Public" and "The Office") and Lena Horne are identified as black in the United States."[6]

According to Jose Neinstein, a native white Brazilian and executive director of the Brazilian-American Cultural Institute in Washington, in the United States, "If you are not quite white, then you are black." However, in Brazil, "If you are not quite black, then you are white." Neinstein recalls talking with a man of Poitier's complexion when in Brazil: "We were discussing ethnicity, and I asked him, 'What do you think about this from your perspective as a black man?' He turned his head to me and said, 'I'm not black,' . . . It simply paralyzed me. I couldn't ask another question."[6]

The Washington Post story also described a Brazilian-born woman who for 30 years before immigrating to the United States considered herself a morena. Her skin had a caramel color that is roughly equated with whiteness in Brazil and some other Latin American countries. "I didn't realize I was black until I came here," she explained.[6] "'Where are you from?' they ask me. I say I'm from Brazil. They say, 'No, you are from Africa.' They make me feel like I am denying who I am."

The same racial culture shock has come to hundreds of thousands of dark-skinned immigrants to the United States from Brazil, Colombia, Panama, and other Latin American nations. Although most lack the degree of African ancestry required to be considered black in their homelands, they have often been considered black in US society. According to the Washington Post, their refusal to accept the United States' definition of black has left many feeling attacked from all directions. At times, white Americans might discriminate against them for their black skin; African Americans might believe that Afro-Latino immigrants are denying their blackness; and they think lighter-skinned Latinos dominate Spanish-language television and media. A majority of Latin Americans possess some African or Native American ancestry. Many of these immigrants feel it is hard enough to accept a new language and culture without the additional burden of having to transform from white to black. Yvette Modestin, a dark-skinned native of Panama who worked in Boston, said the situation was overwhelming: "There's not a day that I don't have to explain myself."[6]
Rice and Powell (on the left) are considered black in the US, Bush and Rumsfeld (on the right) are considered white.

Professor J.B. Bird has said that Latin America is not alone in rejecting the United States' notion that any visible African ancestry is enough to make one black: "In most countries of the Caribbean, Colin Powell would be described as a Creole, reflecting his mixed heritage. In Belize, he might further be described as a 'High Creole', because of his extremely light complexion."[7] This shows that the perception of race, particularly concerning people of black heritage, is relative to each individual person or a people.

Racial mixtures of blacks and whites in modern America

Mark D. Shriver, a molecular anthropologist, heads a group of nine population researchers at Penn State University. They conducted a study of their own regarding the racial admixture of black and white Americans. Who was black or African American and who was white or European American in his study was based on self-identification. It is important to note that measurements are estimates, and might not be completely accurate.[8]

Taking a 3,000 American persons sample from 25 locations in America, among those from the sample who self-identified as white, the black racial admixture between them was only about 0.7%; which is the equivalent of among 128 great-great-great-great-great-grandparents, having 1 black and the other 127 white. Nationwide, estimates project 70% of white Americans have no African ancestors, and among the 30% that do, their black racial admixture is only 2.3%; the equivalent of having 3 three ancestors out of those same 128.[8]

Blacks, on the other hand, are much more racially mixed than whites, although Shriver's study indicates that blacks are less white European than other popular race studies indicate; (studies that indicate blacks being around 25-30% white on average). Taking into consideration that Shriver's study is still not yet complete, results already in indicate that on the whole blacks are around 18% white; which is the equivalent of having 22 white ancestors among those 128. About 10% of blacks are over 50% white. Shriver also points out that the admixture rates also vary by region. For example, the black populations with the highest average white ancestry discovered at this time are those in California and Seattle, with blacks in those two locations being a little over 25% white European on average.[8]

Preponderance of ancestry

Increasingly, the one-drop rule and the reverse one-drop rule are being replaced by another methodology of deciding who is black and white. In this definition, a person's race is expressed in terms of where most of their ancestors come from.

After the completion of the Human Genome Project it became evident that the concept of "race" is not reflected in the human genetic makeup. Although genetic variation does reflect genetic ancestry and patterns of human migration, an individual's race can not be determined by analysis of their DNA. Therefore, while the concept of race still exists on a social level, on a genetic level "race" does not exist:

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other. Indeed, it has been proven that there is more genetic variation within races than exists between them.
—[5]

Debra Dickerson writes that since "easily one-third of blacks have white DNA", why, in light of this, has so much of the focus on tracing ancestry in the black community focused on finding a link back to a region in Africa. She argues that in ignoring their white ancestors, African Americans are denying their fully articulated multi-racial identities.[11]

According to J. Phillipe Rushton, a psychologist who holds that gaps in IQ scores between races represent genetic differences between these races.:

Yes, to a certain extent all the races blend into each other. That is true in any biological classification system. However, most people can be clearly identified with one race or another. In both everyday life and evolutionary biology, a "Black" is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa. A "White" is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in Europe. And an "Oriental" is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in East Asia. Modern DNA studies give rather much the same results.
—[12]

According to Michael Levin:

Hybrid populations with multiple lines of descent are to be characterized in just those terms: as of multiple descent. Thus, American Negroids are individuals most of whose ancestors from 15 to 5000 generations ago were sub-Saharan African. Specifying 'most' more precisely in a way that captures ordinary usage may not be possible. '> 50%' seems too low a threshold; my sense is that ordinary attributions of race begin to stabilize at 75%.
—[13]

Meanwhile, the company DNAPrint Genomics analyzes DNA to estimate the percentage of Indo-European, sub-Saharan, East Asian, and Native American heritage someone has and assigns the person to the category White, Black, East Asian, Native American, or mixed race accordingly. According to U.S. sociologist Troy Duster and ethicist Pilar Ossorio:

Some percentage of people who look white possess genetic markers indicating that a significant majority of their recent ancestors are African. Some percentage of people who look black will possess genetic markers indicating the majority of their recent ancestors were European.
—[14]

[edit] Pencil test

During the system of apartheid in South Africa, one drop of sub-Saharan blood was not enough to be considered black. South African law maintained a major distinction between those who were black and those who were coloured. When it was unclear from a person's physical appearance what racial classification they belonged to, the pencil test was employed. This involved inserting a pencil in a person's hair to determine if the hair was kinky enough for the pencil to get stuck.[15][16] If the pencil remained stuck in a person's hair, the person was "black". This type of test was used by authorities during the apartheid era in South Africa to "ascertain" a person's race. In the absence of any centralized method, this and other subjective tests were used in various places across South Africa as part of the Population Registration Act of 1950. A pencil would be placed in a person's hair, if it fell through they were classified as "White" (or "Coloured", depending on other subjective classification considerations); if the pencil did not fall through, they were classified differently ("Coloured" or "Black", also depending on other subjective classification considerations). Members of the same family who had different hair textures would find themselves in different race groups as a result of this test. This presented serious consequences for many families such as Population Registration Act, Pass Law, Group Areas Act, District Six. [17][18][19][20]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

Raymond

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"

posted January 24, 2010 03:41 AM         

Southern US 1.8 million (1.6%)
Midwestern US 1.1 million (1.6%)
Northeastern US 0.8 million (1.6%)
(2006 American Community Survey)

Multiracial Americans, US residents who identify themselves as of "two or more races", numbered 6.8 million in 2000, or 2.4% of the population.[2]

Since the 1967 Supreme Court decision that deemed anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, there has been a considerable increase in the number of interracial couples and mixed-race children. Until 1989, children continued to be classified as belonging to the race of the non-white parent, reflecting historical hypodescent laws. Since the 1980s, the United States has had a growing multiracial identity movement,[3] culminating in the 2000 census which for the first time presented the opportunity to so self-identify as multiracial, and the election of Barack Obama as the first President of the United States with a multiracial background in November 2008.[4]

History
Further information: Jim Crow laws, Mulatto, Colored, and Interracial marriage in the United States

The American people are mostly multi-ethnic descendants of various culturally distinct immigrant nationalities. Assimilation and integration began to take place in the second half of the 20th century, notably as the result of the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968), but the multiracial identity remains marginal, embraced by well below 5% of the population, in the 2000s.

Interracial marriage in the United States, most notably between whites and blacks, was deemed illegal by anti-miscegenation laws in most states in parts of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. California and the western US had similar laws to prohibit White-Asian American marriages until the 1950s.
[edit] Early United States history

In spite of social stigma and legal persecution, interracial and multiracial relationships have a long history in the United States, that started with the intermixing of the native population and European settlers. Researchers have discovered most of the African Americans free in colonial Virginia were descended not from unions between white planters and enslaved women, but from marriages and relationships between white women, servant or free, and African or African American men, servant, free or slave. Some Africans were freed as early as the 17th century. Many of those "free Negroes migrated to the frontiers of Virginia and North Carolina, together with other settlers.

In 1789 Olaudah Equiano, a former slave turned abolitionist, published his autobiography, which advocated interracial marriage between whites and blacks.[5] One of the most famous and controversial was the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, who was said to have borne several multiracial children by him.

In 1790, the first population census enumerators were asked to classify free residents as white or "other." Slaves were counted separately.

Early United States history

In spite of social stigma and legal persecution, interracial and multiracial relationships have a long history in the United States, that started with the intermixing of the native population and European settlers. Researchers have discovered most of the African Americans free in colonial Virginia were descended not from unions between white planters and enslaved women, but from marriages and relationships between white women, servant or free, and African or African American men, servant, free or slave. Some Africans were freed as early as the 17th century. Many of those "free Negroes migrated to the frontiers of Virginia and North Carolina, together with other settlers.

In 1789 Olaudah Equiano, a former slave turned abolitionist, published his autobiography, which advocated interracial marriage between whites and blacks.[5] One of the most famous and controversial was the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, who was said to have borne several multiracial children by him.

In 1790, the first population census enumerators were asked to classify free residents as white or "other." Slaves were counted separately.

20th century
This section contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry. Please help improve the article by removing excessive quotations or transferring them to Wikiquote. Help is available. (November 2009)

Although by the late 20th century, multi-racialism was becoming more acknowledged in the U.S., it was not until 1967 that miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional, most famously in the Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia.[6]

"Until a change in policy in 1989, biracial babies with a white parents were assigned the racial status of the nonwhite parent... Before 1989 biracial children faced hypodescent laws that positioned them in the non-white racial group, thus barring their entrance into the white race, though they may not necessarily have been welcomed within the other racial/ethnic group with open arms."[7]

"The National Association of Black Social Workers has influenced the American court system by arguing that biracial children should be treated as completely black.[8] Consistent with this view, courts and adoption agencies usually categorize biracial children as black when considering placement. The primary justification for this treatment is that, in the eyes of American society, a biracial child is black and, therefore, must identify positively with being black and must be able to cope with discrimination toward her as a black person .. As a result, the NABSW concludes that when an adoption or custody proceeding concerns a biracial child, a court or adoption agency should favor placing the child with Black parents." [8]

By 1990, there were more than a dozen more ethnic/racial categories on the census, reflecting not only changing social ideas about ethnicity, but the expanded regions of the world from which immigrants were arriving after changes to immigration laws in the 1960s. In a United States in which racial mixing has been increasingly acknowledged and society is becoming more diverse, identifying oneself by just one category has been difficult. The Census Bureau changed its data collection by allowing people to check off more than one classification when identifying their ancestry.

The proportion of multiracial children in the United States is growing. Interracial partnerships are on the rise, as are transracial adoptions. In 1990, about 14% of 18- to 19-year-olds, 12% of 20- to 21-year-olds and 7% of 34- to 35-year-olds were involved in interracial relationships (Joyner and Kao, 2005)[9].

Demographics
Further information: Racial and ethnic demographics of the United States
Eurasian child
Eurasian child

"To many mainline civil rights groups, the new census is part of a multiracial nightmare. After decades of framing racial issues in stark black and white terms, they fear that the multiracial movement will break down longstanding alliances, weakening people of color by splintering them into new subgroups."[10]

Some multiracial individuals feel marginalized by U.S. society. For example, when applying to schools or for a job, or when taking standardized tests, Americans are sometimes asked to check boxes corresponding to race or ethnicity. Typically, about five race choices are given with the instruction to "check only one." Many other such surveys include an additional "other" box, but this unfortunately groups together individuals of many different multiracial types (ex: European Americans/African-Americans are grouped with Asian/Native American Indians).

The 2000 U.S. Census in the write-in response category has a code listing which standardizes the placement of various write-in responses for automatic placement within the framework of the U.S. Census's enumerated races. Whereas most responses can be distinguished as falling into one of the five enumerated races, there remains some write-in responses which fall into the "Mixture" heading which can't be racially categorized. These include, "Bi Racial, Combination, Everything, Many, Mixed, Multi National, Multiple, Several and Various"[11].

In 1997, Greg Mayeda, a Board of Directors person for the Hapa Issues Forum, attended a meeting regarding the new racial classifications for the 2000 U.S. Census. He was arguing against a multiracial category and for multiracial people being counted as all of their races. He argued that a "separate Multiracial Box does not allow a person who identifies as mixed race the opportunity to be counted accurately. After all, we are not just mixed race. We are representatives of all racial groups and should be counted as such. A stand alone Multiracial Box reveals very little about the person checking it."[12].

There remain many circumstances in which biracial individuals are left with no real response when asked for demographic data. But multiracial people won a victory of sorts after years of effort when in 1997, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) changed the federal regulation of racial categories to permit multiple responses, resulting in a new format for the 2000 United States Census, which allowed participants to select more than one of the six available categories, which were, in brief: "White," "Black or African American," "Asian," "American Indian or Alaskan Native," "Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander," and "Other." Further details are given in the article: Race (U.S. census). The OMB made its directive mandatory for all government forms by 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiracial_American

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"

posted January 24, 2010 03:50 AM         

Given the variety of the familial and general social environments in which multiracial children are raised, along with the diversity of their appearance (vis-a-vis their component races and their family members), it can be difficult to make generalizations about multiracial children's challenges or opportunities.

The racial social identity of children and that of their parents in the same multiracial family may vary or be the same.[13] Some multiracial children feel pressure from various sources to "choose" or to assimilate into a single racial identity, while others whose identity or lifestyle is perceived to be closer to some of their component races than others may feel pressure not to abandon one or more of their ethnicities. Many other have chosen to create a whole new type of racial category as in the case of Tiger Woods, who has claimed this he is not just an African American but Cablinasian, a mixture of Caucasian, African American, Native American, and Asian.[14]

Still other children grow up without race being a significant issue in their lives. "[B]eing multiracial can still be problematic. Most constructions of race in America revolve around a peculiar institution known as the 'one-drop rule' ... The one-drop conceit shapes both racism—creating an arbitrary 'caste'—and the collective response against it. To identify as multiracial is to challenge this logic, and consequently, to fall outside both camps."[15] "[M]any monoracials do view a multiracial identity as a choice that denies loyalty to the oppressed racial group. We can see this issue enacted currently over the debate of the U.S. census to include a multiracial category- some oppressed monoracial groups believe this category would decrease their numbers and 'benefits.'"[7]

"Many students who called themselves 'half-Asian/Black/etc.' came to college in search of cultural knowledge but found themselves unwelcome in groups of peers that were 'whole' ethnicities.' (Renn, 1998) She found that as a result of this exclusion on campuses designed to accommodate monoracial individuals, many multiracial students expressed the need to create and maintain a self-identified multiracial community on campus. This is due in part to the fact that multiracial people may identify more with each other, because "they share the experience of navigating campus life as multiracial people," (Renn, 1998) than with their own ethnic groups. This is true in spite of the fact that these multiracial individuals may all have completely different heritages."[16]

African Americans

Americans with Sub-Saharan African ancestry for historical reasons (one-drop rule, one-eighth law) tend to self-identify as African American even if they have significant European American or Native American ancestry. For African Americans, the one-drop system of pigmentocracy was a significant factor in ethnic solidarity. African Americans generally shared a common lot in society and, therefore, common cause—regardless of their multiracial admixture or social and economic stratification. Another factor adding to the difficulty of people of African American descent learning about their Native American heritage is elder family members withholding pertinent genealogical information.[17] Tracing the genealogy of African Americans is a very difficult process especially those descendents of Native Americans; due to the fact that African Americans who were slaves were forbidden to learn to read and write, and a majority of Native Americans didn't speak English, nor read or wrote it.[17] In the 1980s, parents of mixed-race children began to organize and lobby for the addition of a more inclusive term of racial designation that would reflect the heritage of their children. When the U.S. government proposed the addition of the category of "bi-racial" or "multiracial" in 1988, the response from the public was mostly negative. Some African American organizations, and African American leaders such as Congresswoman Diane Watson and Congressman Augustus Hawkins, were particularly vocal in their rejection of the category, fearing massive defection from the African American self-designation.[18] During the 1990s and 2000s, the terms mixed-race, biracial, and multiracial were used increasingly, although it still remains common for those who possess any visible traits of black heritage to identify or be identified solely as blacks or African Americans. Thus, Barack Obama, who is of East African and White American ancestry to equal parts (excepting that, according to his memoir, his mother may have had Cherokee as well as White ancestry) self-identifies as African American,[19] and a majority of African Americans consider Obama black, while a majority of White and Latin Americans classify him as biracial.[20]

A 2003 study found an average of 18.6% (±1.5%) European admixture in a population sample of 416 African Americans from Washington, DC.[21] African Americans can be classed into two types for genetic purposes, based on ancestry: those who are "mostly African" (less than 25% European) and those who are "mostly mixed" ("over 25% European"); according a 2006 study, African Americans fall primarily into the first group with 80% of the population being "mostly African".[22] 20% has more than 25% European ancestry, reflecting long history of both groups in the U.S. The "mostly African" group is substantially African, as 70% of African Americans in this group have less than 15% European ancestry. The 20% African Americans in the "mostly mixed" group (2.7% of US population) are almost entirely between 25% and 50% European.[23] If the "mostly mixed" African Americans are included in the count, the demographic segment of US residents of mixed-race ancestry would rise to some 15 million, or 5% of population. In addition, more recent studies agreed by some historians estimate that most African Americans have significant Native American heritage due to many different circumstances in different families.[24] African Americans with Native American descent have either been accused of not having Native American ancestry or possess little native ancestry. One reason being, the genetic tests done to test for how much Indian Blood a person has does not present a complete picture, as argued by numerous geneticists, because tests trace direct male or female bloodlines and thus exclude most ancestors.[25]

For example, the short series African American Lives was greatly criticized because the program did not acknowledge nor inform those that were tested that not all ancestry may show up in the tests, especially for those who claimed having Native American descent.[25][26][27] The genetic tests done only research a few ancestors, resulting in false negatives being given to the test taker.[26] It is possible that while some Native American groups sampled did not share the pattern of markers being searched for, others might since these genetic markers do not exclusively belong to any one group of our existing racial, ethnic, linguistic, or tribal typologies.[26] In addition, not all Native Americans have been tested, so they do not know for sure that Native Americans only have the genetic markers they have identified, even when their maternal or paternal bloodline does not include a non-Native American.[25][26]

Interracial relations between Native Americans and African Americans has been a part of American history that has been neglected.[17] The earliest record of African and Native American relations occurred in April 1502, when the first Africans kidnapped were brought to Hispanola to serve as slaves. Some escaped and somewhere inland on Santo Domingo the first circle of Black Indians was born.[28] In addition, an example of African slaves' escaping from European colonists and being absorbed by Native Americans occurred as far back as 1526. In June of that year, Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon established a Spanish colony near the mouth of the Pee Dee River in what is now eastern South Carolina. The Spanish settlement was named San Miquel de Guadalupe. Amongst the settlement were 100 enslaved Africans. In 1526, the first African slaves fled the colony and took refuge with local Native Americans.[29]

European colonists created treaties with Native American tribes requesting the return of any runaway slaves. For example, in 1726, the British governor of New York exacted a promise from the Iroquois to return all runaway slaves who had joined them. This same promise was extracted from the Huron Natives in 1764 and from the Delaware Natives in 1765 there is no record of slaves ever being returned.[30] Numerous advertisements requested the return of African Americans who had married Native Americans or who spoke a Native American language. The primary exposure that Africans and Native Americans had to each other came through the institution of slavery.[31] Native Americans learned that Africans had what Native Americans considered 'Great Medicine' in their bodies because Africans were virtually immune to European diseases that decimated most native populations.[32] Because of this many tribes encouraged marriage between the two groups, to create stronger, healthier children from the unions.[32]

Though less than 3% of Native Americans owned slaves, bondage created destructive cleavages in their villages and promoted a class hierarchy based on "white blood."[33] Native Americans of mixed white blood stood at the top, "pure" Native Americans next, and people mixed with of African descent were at the bottom.[33] Now some historians believe that most African Americans have significant Native American heritage due to many different circumstances in families.[24]

Interracial relations among Native American and Europeans did occur, beginning with the French and Spanish explorers and trappers. Even though Europeans considered both races inferior and made efforts to make both Africans and Native Americans enemies; European impact was immediate, widespread, and profound—more than any other race that had contact with Native Americans during the early years of colonization and nationhood."[34][35] Europeans living among Native Americans were often called "white indians". They "lived in native communities for years, learned native languages fluently, attended native councils, and often fought alongside their native companions."[35]

A few early male settlers often married Native American women. Early contact was often charged with tension and emotion, but also had moments of friendship, cooperation, and intimacy.[36] Marriages took place in both English and French colonies between European men and Native women. On April 5, 1614, Pocahontas married Englishman John Rolfe, and they had a child called Thomas Rolfe.

In the early 19th century, the Native American woman Sacagawea, who would help translate for the Lewis and Clark Expedition, was married to French trapper Toussaint Charbonneau. A Native American man had to get consent of the European parents as long as "he can prove to support her as a white woman in a good home".[37] In the late 19th century, three European-American middle-class female staff married Native American men met during the years when Hampton Institute ran its Indian program.[38] Charles Eastman married his European-American wife Elaine Goodale whom he had met in Dakota Territory when Goodale was social worker and the superintendent of Indian education for the reservations.

[edit] Eurasian Americans
Wiki letter w.svg

Main article: Eurasian American

According to the United States Census Bureau, concerning multi-racial families in 1990:

In the United States, census data indicate that the number of children in interracial families grew from less than one half million in 1970 to about two million in 1990. In 1990, for interracial families with one white American partner, the other parent...was Asian American for 45 percent...[39]

According to James P. Allen and Eugene Turner from California State University, Northridge, by some calculations the largest part white bi-racial population is white/American Indian and Alaskan Native, at 7,015,017, followed by white/black at 737,492, then white/Asian at 727,197, and finally white/Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander at 125,628.[40]

The US Census categorizes Eurasian responses in the "Some other race" section as part of the Asian race.[11] The Eurasian responses the US Census officially recognizes are Indo-European, Amerasian, and Eurasian.[11]

[edit] Afro-Asian Americans
Wiki letter w.svg This section requires expansion.

Main article: Afro-Asian American

In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed and Chinese workers who chose to stay in the U.S. could no longer be with their wives who stayed behind in China. Because White Americans looked at Chinese labor workers as stealing employment, they were harassed and discriminated against. Many Chinese men settled in black communities and in turn married black women.[41]

Tiger Woods, a famous golf player, is of white, Chinese, Native American, Thai, and black descent; his father being half African American heritage and half Asian while his mother is of mostly Asian heritage. R&B singer Amerie is another famous Afro-Asian American, with her father being black and her mother Korean. Hines Ward, an NFL football player, is also an Afro-Asian. He currently plays for the Pittsburgh Steelers.

As of the census of 2000, there were 106,782 Afro-Asian individuals in the United States.[42]

[edit] Amerasian
Wiki letter w.svg This section requires expansion with:
examples and additional citations.
Main article: Amerasian

In its original meaning, an Amerasian is a person born in Asia, to a U.S. military father and an Asian mother. Colloquially, the term has sometimes been considered synonymous with Asian American, to describe any person of mixed Asian and American parentage, regardless of the circumstances.
[edit] Passing
Main article: Passing (racial identity)

"Passing" is a term for person whose ancestry is in part that of the dominant group with some ancestry of a subordinate group, but who is seen as only being part of the majority group.

"...[P]assing as white" is difficult to explain in other countries or to foreign students. Typical questions are: "Shouldn't Americans say that a person who is passing as white is white, or nearly all white, and has previously been passing as black?" or "To be consistent, shouldn't you say that someone who is one-eighth white is passing as black?... A person who is one-fourth or less American Indian or Korean or Filipino is not regarded as passing if he or she intermarries and joins fully the life of the dominant community, so the minority ancestry need not be hidden... It is often suggested that the key reason for this is that the physical differences between these other groups and whites are less pronounced than the physical differences between African blacks and whites, and therefore are less threatening to whites... when ancestry in one of these racial minority groups does not exceed one-fourth, a person is not defined solely as a member of that group."[43]

[edit] Multiracial families
Further information: Interracial marriage
A 2004 California wedding between a Filipina bride and a Nigerian groom.

In an article about mixed-race children having identity problems, Charlotte Nitary states:

"Wardle (1989) says that today, parents assume one of three positions as to the identity of their interracial children. Some insist that their child is 'human above all else' and that race or ethnicity is irrelevant, while others choose to raise their children with the identity of the parent of color. Another growing group of parents is insisting that the child have the ethnic, racial, cultural and genetic heritage of both parents."[8]

"Women with children, especially biracial children, have fewer chances for remarriage than childless women. And because the children of a divorce tend to remain with the mothers, becoming incorporated into new families as the mother remarry, interracial children are more threatening markers of race and racial authenticity for families in which race matters."[44].

In 2009, Keith Bardwell, a justice of the peace in Robert, Louisiana, refused to officiate a wedding for an interracial couple and was summarily sued in federal court. See refusal of interracial marriage in Louisiana.

[edit] In fiction

Charles W. Chesnutt was one of the authors who explored the stereotypes in the depiction of multiracial characters as portrayed in fiction and early movies.

"Multiracial characters have often been depicted as 'Wild Half-Castes', sexually destructive antagonists explicitly or implicitly perceived as unable to control the instinctive urges of their non-white heritage." Shows portray multiracials as the "'half-breed' predator... [and] 'halfbreed' temptress [these] perpetuates the association of multiraciality with sexual aberration and violence. Another recurring stereotype is the 'Tragic Mulatto', a typically female character who tries to pass for white but finds disaster when her non-white heritage is revealed... [T]he 'Half Breed Hero' provides a more 'empowering' stereotype... the 'Half Breed Hero' seemingly inspires identification as he actively resists white racism."[45]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiracial_American

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"

posted January 24, 2010 10:58 AM         

I agree completely.

It's amazing and sad what people from Latin American countries have to put up with here in USA. I can easily fit in those countries, especially Brazil. I think that I look like Black,Portuguese mix as I look like both my father and my maternal grandfather's side of the family.

Raymond

Raymond

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"

posted January 24, 2010 05:21 PM         

My son's father is Filipino and Spanish (Filipino father / Spanish mother). He considers himself Filipino which I always thought was insulting to his mother to ignore her like that.

I've always gotten questions from people asking me if I was concerned being a white woman raising a Filipino child. Excuse me? He's 1/4 Filipino. "How are you going to teach him about his heritage?" "How are you going to learn how to cook Filipino food? You'll have to learn hot to make some dishes." "How are you going to teach him the language, tsk tsk". etc. etc. Excuse meee, but his father was born in Brooklyn and knows squat about any of that either. Why am I the bad guy here?

His father never got questions like that regarding my side of the gene pool.

When my son has any interest in learning about either side of the family tree then I will share what I know and he can go to his father for what he knows (we are divorced). He's almost 11 now and has had almost zero interest in it even with me having a white boyfriend now and his dad having a Korean girlfriend. We're just all people to him and that's the way it should be. He's exposed to a lot of different things, foods, families and I guess we're lucky because they all adore him.

He doesn't think of himself as any ethnicity really. He calls himself 'tan' if he's drawing himself.

I remember when he was in 2nd grade, I had fallen down the stairs and I had a huge bruise on my bottom. Someone at school had asked him what color his parents were and he said "Well, dad is sort of medium brown and mom is mostly pink but with a purple butt!"

I did sometimes worry about what if he decided to just identify himself as Filipino. Would that hurt my feelings? I don't know. I don't think about that anymore because that's just not the way he is.

posted January 24, 2010 05:27 PM         

African-American as in half African,Half American.....actually Kenyan-American as in Half Kenyan,Half American

it is said that human life began in Africa.
Mitochondria and Y DNA testing finds out haplogroups which have to do with migration patterns from out of Africa.

I am going to get my Y DNA testing done to check out my paternal line.
My mitochondria DNA (maternal line) testing revealed that I belong to J haplogroup which is 2nd most common haplogroup in Europe. It originated in the Middle East around 40,000 years ago. J1 originated in the Arabian plate around 20,000 years ago. I actually belong to J1c subclade.

L Haplogroup is the oldest mitochondria haplogroup,and other haplogroups branched off from it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"

posted January 25, 2010 06:43 PM         

for myself, i don't sense an association with a race because i don't match the stereotypes. i feel more comfortable associating with where i came from and it's known culture and values because my personality is more aligned with where i came from. but i am aware of what i am made up of and i do see myself feeling very sad, for example, if i see an asian person who is homeless.

maybe it's just a difference in how different mixed race groups are treated like, but i do notice that when you're asian/european, people are more quick to point out the differences or want to question the differences than say maybe another mixed type.

do i make any sense there? i never have to fight people's opinions on me being this or that, they always seem to know or want to make it a point to say oh you're asian but i can see you're also part white.