posted January 19, 2010 09:54 PM         

As a person who is of multiracial ancestry, born mainly to a black father and a white mother with my mother being the only biological parent that I ever knew and only knowing her paternal side of the family, I have problems being compared to a black man that is not mixed like me. It's like I am being pinned down as being black when I am more than that. All my life, I had to fight that stuff because of the unofficial one drop rule "you're part black,and so you're black" . When I was growing, there was no option to mark multiple boxes for race. There was an other box,and I hated that. When I was in the navy, I got chewed out because I mark down more than one box by a chief petty officer. He told me to only mark down thing for race. I responded "No. I won't do that. I am more than one." A master of arms asked me to mark down one box for race, and I refused to do it. He told me that he would mark me down as Hispanic, telling me that I look it. I told him. "No" I just got frustrated, and mark down "Black" I felt that I denied who I was when I did that and succumbed to the one drop rule. In USA, that one drop rule was created to keep black people and white people from mixing. There was a reason why there were segregation laws. They were created to keep blacks and whites from mixing. When Barack Obama Jr. was born, there were over 30 states in the USA with antimiscegenation laws. It was only until June 12, 1967, that all antimiscegenation laws were struck down due to Loving vs. Virginia Supreme court ruling. Lovings were an interracial couple that were fighting for their right to be a legal couple.
I believe that the one drop rule should have already ended with the interracial relationship laws struck down.

As a kid, I didn't like being told that I look nothing like my mother because they couldn't see beyond the color of my skin.
I didn't like when somebody thought my friend's mother was my mom just because she happened to be a black woman that I was with at the time.

People's perceptions of what my ethnic background was varied like I said. Perceptions are relative
whether it was Black and White, Black and Mexican, Puerto Rican, Portuguese, Hawaiian, Samoan, Arab, or Indian, Black and Asian.

When I was born, I had pale yellow skin, straight black hair,and nearly slanted eyes, a lady said that he looks Filipino.
My mom straight up told me that she was confused when she first saw me because she knew that she didn't do anything wrong. She asked her stepmother if my father likes me. My mom told me that my father "Who are you kidding. That's not your child" My mother told me that she was relieved when my skin got darker and my hair got curly.

It makes sense that I have Moon square Neptune with 1'22 orb, and the first thing that I experienced from my mother was confusion which was a constant emotion that I was feeling whenever I saw a form and it said "pick one" despite that I born to to an interracial couple. I didn't fit in with blacks,and I didn't fit in with whites. I did experience prejudice from some white kids when I was in school. I know what it's like to be called the n'word. That first happened when I was 9 years old. It didn't matter that my mom was white. As long as I had black in me, I was just an n'word to them. The last time I was called the n'word was in 2004. I was given a hard time in the navy by blacks that were pro-black to the point of being like Farrakhan wannabes that believe in separation of the races. One white co-worker was talking smack about interracial relationships, saying only fat white women get with black men. I got angry with one black guy that told me that white women only get with black men because of sexual stuff. That made me so angry, I wanted to tear him apart. It took 3 people to take me down. A filipino co-worker wrongly assumed that my last name,Andrews is a slave name (last names that blacks because of white slave masters), but my last name is actually my mother's maiden name. It was changed from Andrade (Portuguese).

When 2000 Census was the 1st U.S. Census to allow people to mark down more than one race, I was very happy. That was due to Statistical Directive 15. I thought it was a victory of multiracial people. It was multiracial people that pushed to make it happen. Many of us refuse to succumb to the one drop rule and want to embrace all of us and not just part of us. I want everybody to acknowledge all of me, and not a part of me. I want people to acknowledge not only my father but also my mother. I took advantage of it, and I marked down multiple boxes for race on the census form. I am going to do the same thing for 2010 Census form.

Only 2.6 percent of the American population was counted as being multiracial, and I was one of them. I believe that there are a lot more multiracial people than that. Maybe 2010 Census will show an increase like maybe 10 percent.

Even though President Barack Obama is the son of a white woman and black man, he's constantly being referred to as the first African American or Black president. He is not referred to as the first multiracial,biracial,or mixed president. It's like the country has a problem acknowledging these types of people. There can only be "lightskinned blacks". What the hell does that mean? Being the offspring of a black parent and a white parent is a much different experience than being the offspring of 2 "lightskinned black parents. It's a totally different experience, especially when you're with your white parent. It's like people look at you and wonder if you're adopted or look at you very curiously. That's not same experience with 2 "lightskinned black" parents.

Fewer Americans call themselves multiracial

"The share of Americans who identify themselves as multiracial has shrunk this decade, an unexpected trend in an increasingly diverse nation.

About 1.9% of the people checked off more than one race in a 2005 Census Bureau survey of 3 million households, a meaningful decline from two surveys in 2000.

"There's no overall explanation" for the drop, says Reynolds Farley, a research scientist at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research who analyzed the trend.

The data show that the nation continues to wrestle with racial identity even in the face of growing diversity, he says. "We're a society where we still basically assume everyone is in one race," he says.

Multiracial groups fought that concept in the 1990s. The small but vocal movement gained momentum in 1997 after golfer Tiger Woods proclaimed his race "Cablinasian" — for Caucasian, black, American Indian and Asian. The spotlight hit other multiracial celebrities, including singer Mariah Carey, actress Halle Berry and Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter.

Mixed-race Americans lobbied the government to stop requiring people to choose one race category on Census and other federal forms. The 2000 Census for the first time allowed people to check more than one race. About 2.4%, or 6.8 million people, did so in the full Census.

The numbers were likely to rise as more children were born to mixed-race parents and multiracial organizations sprouted on college campuses. The opposite happened.

The Census Bureau's American Community Survey of 3 million households a year shows a clear trend, Farley says. In the 2000 ACS, 2.1% checked more than one race. The drop to 1.9% in 2005 is "a slight decrease but statistically significant," Farley says.

Jungmiwha Bullock, president of the Association of MultiEthnic Americans, is not surprised. Some believe that identifying more than one race negates racial identity, she says. "To say you're black and Asian doesn't mean you're not black," she says. "I don't say I'm half black and half Korean. I'm 100% black, and I'm 100% Korean."

The Census numbers "clearly underestimate how many people are mixed race," says Daniel Lichter, a professor at Cornell University who has studied intermarriages. "People aren't willing to define themselves as such."

Many multiracial people identify themselves as black if they grew up in a black neighborhood, he says.

"There's a lot of pressure from society to choose one race," says Sara Ferry, 28, a school psychologist in Philadelphia who has a black father and a Chinese-American mother. "That's unfortunate." http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-04-multiracial_N.htm?POE=click-refer

I embrace all my heritages,and I want everybody else to embrace mine too.

I don't want to be pinned down as one thing. Many other mixed race people don't want to be pinned down as one thing.

I think that's the greatest challenge of the t-square of my Moon in Pisces square the opposition of Jupiter-Neptune in Sagittarius in 3rd and retrograde Saturn in Gemini in 9th. Fighting to keep my own heritage.

I don't think that you can understand what I go through and what I feel unless you are truly in my shoes.

I felt that I had to be honest about my feelings about this whole matter.

There are multiracial celebrities. http://www.blackflix.com/articles/multiracial.html

President Barack Obama
Tiger Woods
Kristoff St. John
Shemar Moore
Mario Van Peebles
Giancarlo Esposito
Philip Michael Thomas
Taimak

and there are many more

The Multiracial Movement is just as important to me as the Neurodiversity Movement.

I want to make this clear:
I believe in equality of all......There is no race that is superior nor inferior. Nobody of any racial composition is superior nor inferior. Just because a person is mixed doesn't make them superior nor inferior to somebody that isn't. A lot of mixed people just want to be accepted for who they are. They don't want people to accept just a part of them. They want people to accept all of them.

If I had it may way,I'd do away with race. Unfortunately, a lot of people are hung up on race. There are disparities among the races in how people are viewed and treated. A lot of racial prejudice,hatred,superiority/inferiority,fear still exists. It will be a very long time before that disappears. I don't believe that belief in diversity of races is a bad thing. It's the intolerance of diversity that is bad in regards to a certain race being good or bad.

Raymond

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

posted January 19, 2010 10:36 PM         

Contents

* Introduction:
What is Multiracial Identity?
* What is Race?
* Unlikely Bedfellows: Race, Census,
and the United States Constitution
* Multiracial Identity and
the U.S. Census: 1790-1890
* Multiracial Identity and
the U.S. Census: 1900-2000
* Multiracial Identity and the
2000, 2010, and 2100 U.S. Census
* Final Thoughts: The Future of
Multiracial Identity in the U.S.

Back on April 23, 1997, 21-year-old golfer Tiger Woods made headlines on the Oprah Winfrey Show when he described his racial background as "Cablinasian," an abbreviation representing his "Caucasian," "Black," "American Indian," and "Asian" heritage. Woods explained that he felt uncomfortable being labeled "African American," and he was reluctant to check only one box for his racial background on school forms. His father is half African American, a quarter Chinese, and a quarter Native American while his mother is half Thai, a quarter Chinese, and a quarter Dutch.

Woods' declaration of a multiracial identity on national television challenged the centuries old belief that racial categories are mutually exclusive and homogeneous. Just days before Woods' interview on Oprah, he earned a historic victory at the Masters' by becoming the first non-white golfer to win the tournament in its 63 year history. The victory was in part marred by white golfer Fuzzy Zoeller referring to Woods as "that little boy" and urging him not to order "fried chicken" or "collard greens" for the Champions Dinner at next year's Masters'.

Zoeller later apologized to Woods, but several sponsors cut ties to Zoeller because of the derogatory nature of his remarks. What is significant is that Zoeller derided Woods as an African American, even though Woods identifies himself as multiracial. This dilemma represents one of the fundamental complexities of multiraciality in the U.S. While multiethnic and multiracial people have been a part of U.S. society since the nation's founding, why is it that multiracial identities challenge, complicate, and disrupt our most basic assumptions about race? One of the direct ways to answer this question is to examine the ways in which the U.S. Census has recorded multiracial identities over its 220-year history.
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/census/review.php

Raymond

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

posted January 19, 2010 10:39 PM         

Contents

* Introduction:
What is Multiracial Identity?
* What is Race?
* Unlikely Bedfellows: Race, Census,
and the United States Constitution
* Multiracial Identity and
the U.S. Census: 1790-1890
* Multiracial Identity and
the U.S. Census: 1900-2000
* Multiracial Identity and the
2000, 2010, and 2100 U.S. Census
* Final Thoughts: The Future of
Multiracial Identity in the U.S.

What the controversy surrounding Tiger Woods and Fuzzy Zoeller illustrates is that assumptions and misunderstandings abound when it comes to conversations about race. Part of the difficulty is that objective, scientific definitions of race are non-existent. Among biologists and geneticists there are differing schools of thought.

One group of scientists argues that there is only one race: The human race. In their view genetic research demonstrates that Homo sapiens share 99.9% of DNA (Lehrman, 2003). The few genes and alleles that account for differences in skin, eye, and hair color-common physical traits used to differentiate racial groups-are part of that 00.1% where human DNA diverges. Thus, "race is biologically meaningless" (Schwartz, 2001) and "commonly used ethnic labels are both insufficient and inaccurate representations of inferred genetic clusters" (Wilson et al, 2001). On top of the high percentage of genetic similarity, physical traits such as skin and hair color vary independently. For example, dark skin and blond hair are found together in the Solomon Islands (Norton et al. 2005). This type of variance undermines the usefulness of binding together certain physical characteristics to create scientific categories of race.

Another school argues that researching by race is a worthwhile undertaking in limited situations, such as studying susceptibility to genetic diseases and reactions to medication. In this narrow realm of research where race can be a significant factor, the way in which we typically define race must be altered. Instead of using physical traits such as skin color, a more objective and useful method involves genetic sub-groupings, which can be derived from major events in the timeline of human evolution (Risch, 2002).

chart of racial groups
The evolutionary tree of human races. Population genetic studies of world populations support the categorization into five major groups, as shown. (Risch, 2002).

If we take a look at the science related to physical traits commonly associated with race, then we can learn a great deal about how evolutionary adaptations to the environment have resulted in genetic differences. For example, the leading explanation for the evolution of light hair and light skin concerns an adaption to better produce Vitamin D in places with deficient sunlight. Lack of Vitamin D inhibits calcium absorption and can lead to rickets. Also, women need to produce additional Vitamin D3 when pregnant or lactating in order to absorb greater quantities of calcium. For these reasons, humans in Northern Europe, which suffers from seasonal deficiencies of sunlight, developed skin with less pigmentation. Lighter skin allows more sunlight to trigger the production of Vitamin D. In this way, the prevalence of light hair in Northern Europe is a result of the light skin adaptation (Robins, 1991; Jablonski and Chaplin, 2000). At the same, overexposure to sunlight among pregnant women can harm fetal development because excess UV radiation can cause oxidative damage to DNA. Darker skin and hair offers protection from this risk, which is an evolutionary advantage in places like Africa and India (Jablonski, 2004).

While natural science can explain the evolutionary causes and effects that lead to differences in skin color, hair color, and other physical traits we associate with race, it is within the realm of social science where the significance assigned to race through social, political, and cultural beliefs are interrogated. For example, from the late 19th century to the mid 20th century, eugenicists believed they could prove the superiority of one racial group over another through scientific investigation. Comparing differences in the average volume of the human skull was one method used in the attempt to rank racial groups by intelligence. It was found that these so-called biological differences originated from researcher bias once blind testing became the scientific standard (Gould, 1981). Scientists were able to disprove eugenics over time, but the eugenicists' focus on racial stratification still pervades our society.

It might come as a surprise that the popularity of breeding "pure" dogs arose in conjunction with the eugenicist movement (Budiansky, 2000). The idea that one could create the perfect type through selective breeding, resulting in a "pure bred," became widespread. We look down upon people holding this view with regard to human life, exemplified by the Nazi belief in Aryan supremacy. Yet efforts to avoid "contaminating" the purity of so-called "supreme" races by discouraging or preventing sexual relations between persons of different racial groups had also formed part of the eugenicist agenda, even in the United States (Sandall, 2008). The belief that so-called "inferior" races are "improved" when there is "mixture" with the "supreme" race has often been used to justify genocide, ethnic cleansing, and mass rape. This was the case with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan as well as, more recently, the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. In the U.S., it was thought that the white race is weakened through mixing with other races, but other races are strengthened by being mixed with white (Park, 1931). This hypocrisy speaks to the cruelty of racism as well as the tenuous position of multiracial people.

Richard & Virginia Loving
Mildred and Richard Loving
In the U.S., the last legal prohibitions against interracial marriage were overturned in 1967 with the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in Loving v. Virginia. Richard and Mildred Loving were residents of Virginia, which banned marriage between white and non-white partners, so they married in Washington, D.C., in 1958. Richard was white and Mildred was black and Native American, and the police in Virginia arrested them in 1959 for violating a law that criminalized interracial couples from marrying out of state and returning to Virginia to live. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Lovings, which eventually led to the legalization of all interracial marriages.

Unfortunately, the social stigma attached to interracial marriage remains (Moran, 2001). In one extreme case, a justice of the peace in Louisiana named Keith Bardwell was forced to resign in 2009 because he refused to perform marriages for interracial couples. His justification was that the children of mixed marriages are rejected by both communities and suffer as a result (Deslatte, 2009). The more typical mechanism used to discourage interracial marriage stems from pressure applied by family members, often disguised in color-blind language (Childs, 2002). Families create and reproduce racial boundaries by controlling whom members can and cannot date, court, or marry. Often the racial "other" is construed as "different," "deviant," or even "dangerous" in order to discourage an interracial couple or union from forming (Childs, 2002).

Given that Barack Obama, the nation's first African American president, is the son of a biracial couple, why does the taboo against interracial couples and their children persist? For social scientists, the answer resides in the social construction of race. In other words, the concept of race originates from our society, including its history, culture, and laws. Meanings and interpretations of race change as society changes (Sollors, 2002). This is especially true for multiracial people.

Omi and Winant (1986) illustrate the social construction of race in a famous legal case from 1983 where Susie Guillory Phipps sued the Louisiana Bureau of Vital Records to change her racial classification from black to white. By many definitions she was multiracial as the descendant of an 18th-century white planter and his black slave. She was designated as "black" on her birth certificate because Louisiana law stated that anyone with at least one-thirty-second "Negro blood" was "black."

Phipp's' attorney argued that the assignment of racial categories on birth certificates was unconstitutional and that the one-thirty-second designation was inaccurate. He asked for expert testimony from a retired Tulane University professor who cited research indicating that most whites have one-twentieth "Negro" ancestry. Assistant Attorney General Ron Davis defended the law by pointing out that some type of racial classification was necessary to comply with federal record-keeping requirements and to facilitate programs for the prevention of genetic diseases.

In the end, Phipps lost. Despite being 97% "white," the one-drop rule prevented her from legally changing her race on her birth certificate, so she remained "black." The fact that the case was heard only 26 years ago speaks to the immediate and complex social, political, and cultural issues at stake when it comes to multiracial identities. While controversy over race remains in U.S. society, its origins can be traced back to the nation's genesis. A historical overview of the interdependence among race, census, and the United States Constitution follows. As it turns out, all three are related in surprising ways.
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/census/review2.php

Raymond

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

posted January 19, 2010 10:41 PM         

Contents

* Introduction:
What is Multiracial Identity?
* What is Race?
* Unlikely Bedfellows: Race, Census,
and the United States Constitution
* Multiracial Identity and
the U.S. Census: 1790-1890
* Multiracial Identity and
the U.S. Census: 1900-2000
* Multiracial Identity and the
2000, 2010, and 2100 U.S. Census
* Final Thoughts: The Future of
Multiracial Identity in the U.S.

From the moment the U.S. was founded, contentious debate over race ensued, especially concerning definitions of white, black, and Native American (or "American Indian"). This debate had real consequences in terms of the way federal tax revenue would be distributed to states as well as the number of legislators each state could send to the capitol. As a result, the original draft of the United States Constitution includes provisions regarding race and the U.S. Census. What may come as a surprise is how closely the two are linked.

When the United States Constitution was being written in 1787, a compromise was reached between Northern and Southern states whereby three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted in the official population. At that time the U.S. population was approximately 4 million people, and one out of every five persons was a slave. The need for the three-fifths compromise stemmed from Northern states being largely comprised of free persons and Southern states of free persons and slaves. The fundamental question involved the best manner to count slaves as a part of the nation's population. On the one hand, slaves could not vote. On the other hand, slaves made up the majority of the population in certain regions of the country.

constitutional convention
The Signing of the Constitution of the United States, painting by Howard Chandler Christy

Delegates from states opposed to slavery wanted to count the free inhabitants of each state and exclude slaves from the census. Delegates from states supportive of slavery wanted to count slaves by their actual numbers. Each group argued for a policy that best increased its chance of receiving economic and political advantages. The final compromise reduced the power of the Southern states by not counting slaves as whole individuals, but it did increase the Southern states' numbers relative to the Northern states. Thus, even though slaves could not vote, three-fifths of their total number was included in the population. In the end, the compromise became part of Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.

What is interesting is that the sentence containing the three-fifths clause is immediately followed by a government mandate to conduct a "decennial" census (every ten years). It is as if the convention delegates knew that in order to implement the three-fifths clause, a regular census must be carried out. Thus, beginning as far back as 1787 we can see the importance of using the U.S. Census to collect data on race, i.e., "free persons" and "slaves." While free blacks lived in the U.S. at this time, the vast majority lived in bondage, so counting "free persons" and "slaves" was akin to counting people by race. In fact, the very first U.S. Census, conducted in 1790, only asked six questions: (1) Name of the head of the household, (2) number of persons living in the household, (3) number of free white males who are sixteen years old or older living in the household; (4) number of free white males who are under the age of sixteen living in the household, and (5) the sexes and (6) colors of all of the other persons living in the household (U.S. Census).

Over the next 200 years the U.S. Census changed to suit the political, economic, and social needs of the nation; however, one thing stayed the same. People were always counted as belonging to one racial category, even if they were racially mixed.

Much of the research discussed in the following sections focuses on black and white identities, though not exclusively. This is due in large part to the contentious relations between blacks and whites since the formation of the U.S., creation of the United States Constitution, and initiation of a decennial census.
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/census/review3.php

Raymond

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

posted January 19, 2010 10:43 PM         

Contents

* Introduction:
What is Multiracial Identity?
* What is Race?
* Unlikely Bedfellows: Race, Census,
and the United States Constitution
* Multiracial Identity and
the U.S. Census: 1790-1890
* Multiracial Identity and
the U.S. Census: 1900-2000
* Multiracial Identity and the
2000, 2010, and 2100 U.S. Census
* Final Thoughts: The Future of
Multiracial Identity in the U.S.

It is impossible to try to count the number of multiracial people in the 1790 U.S. Census because of the racial categories used: white, slave, and "other." The latter was used for "Free Coloreds," or persons who were free but did not look white. Furthermore, Native Americans were intentionally excluded from the U.S. Census until 1890 (Jobe, 2004). Other types of government surveys were used to count them since tribes were usually accorded the status of quasi-sovereign nations. Census takers used their discretion to determine who fit in the category of "Free Colored," so it is hard to identify the dividing lines between black, white, and "other." A "Free Colored" could be a black person who was not a slave, a free person of mixed black and white ancestry, or a free person of another ethnic or racial origin whom the census taker did not feel was white. Sometimes these "others" included individuals of Portuguese, Turkish, or "Black Dutch" heritage. (Both Portuguese and Turkish people are considered "white" by modern U.S. Census standards.)

As early as the 1820 U.S. Census, the "Free Coloreds" category was used to identify a tri-racial population in Appalachia known as Melungeons. It is generally thought that Melungeons are of white, black, and Native American ancestry (Montell, 1972; Lipsey, 1977). Genealogists who traced the family trees of Melungeons found that their racial classification varied from census to census. In other words, a family may have been listed as "white" in 1790, "Free Colored" in 1820, and "Mulatto" in 1850 (Rowe, 2009). Often the appearance of Melungeons, such as the Goins family, also made people speculate they were of Portuguese, Turkish, or Middle Eastern descent (Philipkoski, 2009).

In the 19th century, categories such as mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, hexadecaroon, and quintroon were used to indicate varying levels of mixture between white and black. Mulatto described persons of mixed race, part black and part white. Quadroon meant one-quarter black ancestry. Octoroon meant one-eighth black. Hexadecaroon meant one-sixteenth black. Quintroon was a person who had one parent who was an octoroon and one white parent. These labels indicate that multiracial individuals didn't fit in the black and white dichotomy of racial relations, and they occupied a separate category in the U.S. Census. Often, a social strata known as "Creoles" or gens de couleur libres (free persons of color) formed in places like New Orleans, Louisiana, which was notable for racial mixtures that didn't fit easy classification.

In addition to introducing the Mulatto category in the 1850 U.S. Census, the debate over the three-fifths clause became especially impassioned in the years leading up to the Civil War because the future of slavery was in question. After the Civil War, Southern states saw their representation in Congress increase with the addition of free blacks to the census count. Northern Republicans countered with the Fourteenth Amendment, which reduced a state's representation if it denied the right to vote to all male citizens (Anderson, 2002). The end of slavery rendered the three-fifths clause obsolete, but national politics continued to be shaped by it, and the U.S. Census continued to collect information on race. By 1890, the five racial groups tracked by the U.S. Census were white, black, mulatto, Indian (Native American), and Chinese. Hispanics were not counted as a separate race at this time. They were regarded as white by the U.S. Census.1
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/census/review4.php

Raymond

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

posted January 19, 2010 10:44 PM         

Contents

* Introduction:
What is Multiracial Identity?
* What is Race?
* Unlikely Bedfellows: Race, Census,
and the United States Constitution
* Multiracial Identity and
the U.S. Census: 1790-1890
* Multiracial Identity and
the U.S. Census: 1900-2000
* Multiracial Identity and the
2000, 2010, and 2100 U.S. Census
* Final Thoughts: The Future of
Multiracial Identity in the U.S.

The end of the Civil War did not engineer an immediate end to white supremacy and racial segregation, both of which accompanied the culture and legacy of slavery. After federal troops withdrew from the South in 1877, wealthy whites started to regain political power by disenfranchising blacks and poor whites through Jim Crow laws. The pernicious nature of these laws is exemplified in so-called intelligence and comprehension tests given to African American voters. The test questions were often incomprehensible or unanswerable. Bea Clark of Sardis, Mississippi, recalled being asked "How many bubbles are in a bar of soap?" If she failed to answer correctly, then she was forbidden to cast a ballot. Whites were excused from these types of questions because of "grandfather clauses," which exempted anyone whose ancestors had the right to vote before the Civil War.

In 1896, Homer Plessy challenged a Jim Crow law in Louisiana that separated railroad passengers by race. He was one-eighth black and considered "colored," i.e., neither black nor white because of his mixed background. Plessy's case made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that the "separate but equal" treatment of coloreds and whites was legal in public places. This ruling reaffirmed racial segregation in schools, hospitals, trains, and many other public places.

Plessy v. Ferguson paved the way for even more restrictive and discriminatory segregation. Southern politicians sought to preserve the "purity" of the white race long after slave owners established the practice of fathering children with their enslaved women (Small, 1994). The push to ensure white racial purity resulted in the creation and enforcement of hypodescent laws or the "one drop rule," in which anyone with "one drop" of "Negro blood" was considered black. Whereas a "colored" (racially mixed) man like Homer Plessy was able to use the same facilities as whites before 1890 that was no longer the case 30 years later. With few exceptions, anyone who was not "pure" white was "colored" in the eyes of the law. As a result, the status of racially mixed people was largely relegated to that of the racial minority identified in their ancestry. At the same time, numerous people were successful at "passing" as white because of their light complexion (Golub, 2005). This demonstrates that even during times of strict racial segregation, there are areas of gray where dominant ideologies about race are negotiated, reinterpreted, and indirectly subverted.

White & colored water fountains

The collection of census data (and lack thereof) on multiracial people continued in much the same way for the next 80 years, but the events that eventually led to major changes in the 2000 U.S. Census originated from government responses to the civil rights movement (Fernandez, 1996). The social unrest, protests, and riots that occurred from the 1950s to the 1970s to draw attention to the inequality experienced by racial minorities spurred landmark legislation, such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

It became apparent to government leaders that the U.S. Census could be used as a tool to help measure racial equality and collect accurate figures for civil rights enforcement (Perlmann, 2002). A few months after implementing the Civil Rights Act, President Lyndon Johnson enacted Executive Order 11185 to better organize the delivery of public education, especially with regard to underserved ethnic and racial minorities. This led to the formation of the Federal Interagency Committee on Education (FICE), which brought together 30 different federal agencies.

Cesar Chavez giving speech
Cesar Chavez (1927 - 1993), the leader of the UFW (United Farm Workers) and a prominent Chicano spokesman, during a grape boycott in California
In 1973 FICE produced a report on access to higher education among Chicano, Puerto Rican, and Native American students. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Caspar Weinberger latched on to the part of the report that explained the absence of useful data on ethnic and racial groups because of a lack of common definitions. A year later an ad hoc committee was formed to solve this problem, which developed guidelines to make "compatible" and "nonduplicative" categories of race used by all federal agencies. One of the stipulations was that racial categories could not be combined or overlapped. In effect, this reinforced the system of mutually exclusive racial categories, and it led to the creation of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Directive No. 15: Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. The standard issued in 1977 defined five main racial categories.2

* American Indian or Alaskan Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliations or community recognition.
* Asian or Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.
* Black. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
* Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
* White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.

By 1994 the OMB's standards of race and ethnicity were considered simplistic, and pressure built to revise them. Public hearings were conducted in which multiracial people demanded changes, such as, "adding a multi-racial category to the list of racial designations so that respondents would not be forced to deny part of their heritage by having to choose a single category"; "adding an other category for individuals of multi-racial backgrounds and those who want the option of specifically stating a unique identification"; and "providing an open-ended question to solicit information on race and ethnicity, or combining concepts of race, ethnicity, and ancestry" (Office of Management and Budget).

Nearly 30 years after the Loving v. Virginia decision legalized interracial marriage in the U.S., the movement to grant multiracial people the freedom to create and define their own identities on government forms was well underway (Weisman, 1996). The impetus largely came from two sources. (1) Organizations like the Association of MultiEthnic Americans (AMEA), A Place for Us (APFU), and Project RACE (Reclassify All Children Equally) pushed for change on the national level (Farley, 2002; Williams, 2005; Spencer, 1999). White women married to middle-class black men spearheaded petitions at the state and local level because they felt their children were being forced to choose one parent over the other on government forms (Williams, 2006).

Conservative political leaders such as Newt Gingrich and Ward Connerly supported the shift to multiracial classification, largely because they saw it as contributing to the curtailment of race-based affirmative action programs (Williams, 2006). Republican Congressman Thomas Petri of Wisconsin introduced H.R. 830 in the 104th Congress (June 1996), which tried to force the OMB to add a multiracial category to the 2000 U.S. Census. Petri dubbed this the "Tiger Woods Bill." Despite numerous efforts, Tiger Woods refused to join or endorse the multiracial cause (Williams, 2005).

Opposition to multiracial identification appeared from the old guard of the civil rights movement, including many Democrats in Congress. They argued that allowing multiple racial identities on government forms would reduce the visibility of racial minorities in statistical data, especially African Americans who are already undercounted by government agencies.3 The cumulative effect would be a reduction of money and services to minority communities (Williams, 2006). It has also been observed that discussion involving multiracial identification and racial classification is inseparable from administering the modern welfare state, especially with regard to civil rights enforcement and affirmative action programs (Skerry, 2002).

In the end, the OMB capitulated to the demands of those advocating for the inclusion of multiracial identities on government forms. By 1997 it was decided that selecting more than one racial category would be permitted beginning with the 2000 U.S. Census.
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/census/review5.php

Raymond

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

posted January 19, 2010 10:45 PM         

Contents

* Introduction:
What is Multiracial Identity?
* What is Race?
* Unlikely Bedfellows: Race, Census,
and the United States Constitution
* Multiracial Identity and
the U.S. Census: 1790-1890
* Multiracial Identity and
the U.S. Census: 1900-2000
* Multiracial Identity and the
2000, 2010, and 2100 U.S. Census
* Final Thoughts: The Future of
Multiracial Identity in the U.S.

It is next to impossible to accurately count the number of multiracial individuals using data collected for the 1990 U.S. Census because of the questions asked (and not asked), but it is estimated that a half million people identified as multiracial (Williams, 2005). Former Census Bureau director Kenneth Prewitt overheard that people who marked two or more racial categories on the 1990 U.S. Census were assigned to a single race based on which box had the darkest pen mark (Williams, 2005). For people who used the "other" category to write in "black-white" or "white-black" as their race, the census counted the former as "black" and the latter as "white" since the second race listed was ignored (Lee, 1993).

For the 2000 U.S. Census these inconsistencies were eliminated. Two or more racial identities were reported by 6.8 million Americans (or 2.4% of the country's population). Jones and Smith (2001) wrote a comprehensive report on the multiracial population. Highlights include maps and data tables showing the cities and states with the most multiracial people. For example, the most multiracial city is Honolulu, Hawaii, with nearly 15% of its population claiming two or more races. Additional highlights include analyses of the prevalence of multiraciality within and among racial groups, with "American Indians and Alaska Natives" and "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders" reporting the greatest incidence of multiracial identity.

map of multiracial U.S.

Jones and Smith (2001) found that 93% of the people who reported being multiracial in the U.S. Census are actually biracial, meaning their heritage was composed of two races. The three most common multiracial identites are Asian-white, black-white, and Hispanic-white (Brunsma, 2005; Holloway et al, 2009). Additional research on data from the 2000 U.S. Census by Farley (2002) found 63 different combinations of race. When Hispanic ethnicity was disambiguated, the number reached 126 different ethnic and racial identities (Farley, 2002). While the diversity of multiethnic and multiracial identities might be impressive for demographers tracking the country's changing racial profile, the data actually have a great deal of practical application to policy making in education, health services, employment, and housing (Graham, 1996). At the same time, former OMB researcher Roderick Harrison is critical of the changes to include multiracial identities because they make it more difficult to address inequalities based on race or ethnicity (2002). Geographic variability and the subjective nature of racial self-identification pose problems. Further, the data do not always refer to "meaningful" multiracial populations, and their validity and reliability are doubtful for evaluating social, economic, health, or housing characteristics of different population groups (Harrison, 2002).

Shortly before the 2000 U.S. Census was conducted, the OMB implemented a new guideline (OMB Bulletin No. 00-02) that automatically counted multiracial respondents who marked both white and a nonwhite category as belonging to the nonwhite group. Goldstein and Morning believe that this new guideline is effectively a return to the old "one-drop rule" that was prevalent in the 19th and early 20th centuries (2002). These OMB guidelines, they argue, violate the principle of self-identification, err on the side of extending race-based public policies to individuals who might previously not have qualified, and affect civil rights and voting laws based on single-race criteria (Goldstein and Morning, 2002).

The new racial classification system instituted by OMB Bulletin No. 00-02 also might endanger civil rights and voting rights (Harrison, 2002). It was found that counting mixed white-nonwhite people as members of the minority group raises the aggregate socioeconomic status of African Americans and Native Americans but lowers it slightly for Asian Americans. This has potential implications for civil rights cases involving employment discrimination since race is usually weighed in conjunction with other factors such as education and social class (Harrison, 2002).

Furthermore, counting mixed white-nonwhite people as members of minority groups can dramatically alter the count. For example, in 2000 10.2 million people checked only "Asian" on the census, and an additional 1.7 million people checked both "Asian" and "white." Including the mixed Asian-white group increases the number of Asians by 15%. Likewise, the number of people counted as "American Indian or Alaska Native" on the census fluctuates by 65% depending on whether multiracial people are added to the total (Harrison, 2002).

While researchers like Harrison and Goldstein and Morning offer critical responses to the inclusion of multiracial identities in the census, Roth (2005) uses data from the 1990 and 2000 Public Use Microdata Samples to investigate how intermarried black and white parents chose to identify their biracial children. She found that the majority of parents rejected the "one-drop rule." Daniel (1996) also explores the ways in which intermarried black and white parents described and constructed the racial identity(ies) of their children. His research reveals that the "one-drop rule" still exerts some influence, but it is being challenged by individuals who strive to form equally strong ties between their family's African American and European American backgrounds. In addition, the families in Daniel's study affirm an integrative identity that has both the black and white communities as reference groups but also a pluralistic identity that blends aspects of the black and white communities but is not the same as either.

Bratter and Heard (2009) study the racial classification of adolescents taking into account both the race and gender of the parents. They found that the identity of multiracial adolescents' tends to match the father's identity in black-white families, especially if the father is white. In contrast, the identity of multiracial adolescents in Asian-white families tends to match the identity of the mother regardless of her race. While the father's involvement, particularly educational involvement, is more likely than the mother's to influence racial classification, adjusting for involvement does not explain these gender patterns. In fact, the study shows that well-known gender influences on parenting have little to do with the complex ways parent-child relationships impact racial classification.

Brunsma (2005) examines the ways in which Asian-white, black-white, and Hispanic-white multiracial children are identified by their parents, and he observes a general movement away from identification as a racial minority and toward identification as "multiracial" and "white." The trend is predicated upon other social factors, such as parents' gender and socioeconomic status.

Holloway et al (2009) also analyze the identities assigned to Asian-white, black-white, and Hispanic-white multiracial children by their parents, but they focus on spatial factors, such as household, neighborhood, and metropolitan areas. It turns out that a neighborhood's proportion of white residents increases the probability that parents report their children as white. Likewise, a neighborhood's racial diversity increases the probability that black-white parents claim a non-white race (black or "other") for their children. In short, this may signal that the identities of multiracial children are party influenced by their parents' efforts to help them "fit in" the existing racial structure of their neighborhoods.

What all of these studies suggest is the complicated nature of labeling and creating multiracial identities, especially for parents and children. Dalmage (2000) finds that multiracial families cause people with a single racial identity to question the homogeneity of their heritage. In short, race is a shifting, unstable form of identity.
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/census/review6.php

Raymond

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

posted January 19, 2010 10:49 PM         

Contents

* Introduction:
What is Multiracial Identity?
* What is Race?
* Unlikely Bedfellows: Race, Census,
and the United States Constitution
* Multiracial Identity and
the U.S. Census: 1790-1890
* Multiracial Identity and
the U.S. Census: 1900-2000
* Multiracial Identity and the
2000, 2010, and 2100 U.S. Census
* Final Thoughts: The Future of
Multiracial Identity in the U.S.

The 2010 U.S. Census will be only the second one in which respondents can choose more than one racial identity, and two of the ten questions deal with ethnicity and race. Question #8 asks about Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish race and ethnicity. Within the four affirmative boxes, twelve possible ethnic and racial identities are given, including a write-in box. Question #9 asks about four non-Hispanic racial groups. Within the 15 different boxes, twenty-six possible ethnic and racial identities are given, including three write-in boxes. Both questions suggest the growing and complex ethnic and racial diversity present in the U.S.

Most demographers expect to see an increase in the numbers and percentages of multiracial people in the 2010 U.S. Census and beyond. For example, Edmonston et al (2002) projected the racial composition of the U.S. population up to 2100. At that time the total U.S. population will eclipse 550 million people, and the racial composition of the country will be 38.8% white, 30.6% Hispanic, 15.6% black, 14.9% Asian and Pacific Islander, and 1% American Indian. Edmonston et al's (2002) model uses the existing racial categories set by the OMB, and they account for multiracial people by numerating them for each racial group that composes their identity. Thus, someone like Tiger Woods, a "Cablanasian," would essentially be counted as four people in their projection: one white, one black, one Native American, and one Asian. Edmonston et al (2002) also factored in immigration, fertility, and intermarriage to help the model account for expected demographic pressures.

It is important to remember that Edmonston et al's (2002) projections are not predictions. The push-pull factors of immigration can swing greatly because of significant changes in global economic or environmental conditions. Fertility can also vary based on the distribution of age groups within U.S. society. An older population will tend to have lower fertility rates and a younger population will tend to have higher rates. As immigrants settle in the U.S. and the native-born population becomes more accepting of interracial relationships, an increase in the number of intermarriages and multiracial children is inevitable. On top of that, Bratter (2007) found that the intergenerational transmission of a multiracial identity is more common in contexts of racial diversity. If the U.S. continues to become more racially diverse as demographers predict, then multiracial identities could one day be the norm. In light of the future and present situation of multiracial people, Root (1996) went so far as to create a "Bill of Rights for Racially Mixed People." One can only wonder if such language will ever make its way into the United States Constitution, but given demographic predictions perhaps it will. And if it does, how will it affect the census? Time will tell.

I HAVE THE RIGHT. . .

* Not to justify my existence in this world.
* Not to keep the races separate within me.
* Not to be responsible for people's discomfort with my physical ambiguity.
* Not to justify my ethnic legitimacy.

I HAVE THE RIGHT. . .

* To identify myself differently than strangers expect me to identify.
* To identify myself differently from how my parents identify me.
* To identify myself differently from my brothers and sisters.
* To identify myself differently in different situations.

I HAVE THE RIGHT. . .

* To create a vocabulary to communicate about being multiracial.
* To change my identity over my lifetime -- and more than once.
* To have loyalties and identification with more than one group of people.
* To freely choose whom I befriend and love.
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/census/reviewf.php

Raymond

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

posted January 20, 2010 02:54 AM         

quote:

---

After having a dream about being on this thread and being bothered to being compared to Denzel Washington, I have a confession to make

---

One of the best opening statements in a thread starter ever.

Anyway, yea, race division is arbitrary, and varies wildly around the world, yet people are somehow deluded into thinking these definitions are objective rather than subjective. In addition many people also find any form of ambiguity as simply too complicated to acknowledge, and try to impose their willfully limited perceptions onto society.

Which is why, like you, I'd do away with the very concept of "race" if I could, with things like skin differences as no different than differences in hair color. Making a big deal out of race, or anything else, comes off to me as making a big deal about which hand you use (or are ambidextrous). For that matter, taking pride in being a so-called race or whatever or hating a so-called race or whatever strikes me as like doing the same over which hand is your primary or hating others on which hand is their primary.

posted January 20, 2010 05:40 AM         

quote:

---

Mixed-race Americans lobbied the government to stop requiring people to choose one race category on Census and other federal forms. The 2000 Census for the first time allowed people to check more than one race. About 2.4%, or 6.8 million people, did so in the full Census.

The numbers were likely to rise as more children were born to mixed-race parents and multiracial organizations sprouted on college campuses. The opposite happened.

---

What is the aim of the United States of America? Or the aim of being American? Does the USA have a goal for everyone to be "American" - a just society based on equality and opportunities for all?

So are people in the USA American? Or Asian, Hispanic, African?

Why does the USA govt still need to know how people identify when being an American is the ultimate goal?

I know there are still inequalities within society, and taking these surveys proves it. So shouldn't people be called "Privileged American" and "Disadvantaged American" if that is what the survey is searching for?

posted January 20, 2010 11:25 AM         

I have a great, great...great grandmother who was Native American and lived on a reservation. I've always had a fascination in Native American culture because of this. What frustrates me is I don't know what tribe. But I've been asked a few times if I was Native American and I love it that someone can see that in me. I hate being classified as "white" because I am proud of the Native American side to me as well. My skin is more of an olive color, yet I'm classified as "white".
And I've been told that unless I have something that proves I am affiliated with a certain tribe, that I have to mark the "white" box.

I can't say I know what you're feeling... I hate that phrase. Because from what I understand it's a whole different story being black in America. I understand you are mixed, but this is a part of who you are. I watched a movie called The Secret Life of Bee's and it just shocked me. I guess I didn't realize how bad the racism was even in the 60's which wasn't that long ago. There's a part in the movie when the white girl and the black boy go to see a movie and there were different entrances for them both.. just blew me away to watch this. And the 60's was less than 50 years ago. That's not very long to turn such a horrible way of thinking around. I can't see treating another human being this way. The movie was a real eye opener for me.

posted January 20, 2010 12:34 PM         

I agree. I feel the same way about zodiac signs. I didn't like people pinning me down as a Scorpio. I'd rather people acknowledge my whole chart.

"What is the aim of the United States of America? Or the aim of being American? Does the USA have a goal for everyone to be "American" - a just society based on equality and opportunities for all?

"So are people in the USA American? Or Asian, Hispanic, African?"
Supposedly American, but I don't blame some people that might not like to identify as American like some indigenous people. I always wondered if some Native Americans don't like being referred to as that but as their own tribes like Cherokee,Navajo. After all, the Americas were named after an Italian named Amerigo Vespucci.

"Why does the USA govt still need to know how people identify when being an American is the ultimate goal?" demographics. there are things like civil rights matters,affirmative action, health stuff, checking if there are any disparities.

I have a problem with NAACP who care a lot about about the rights of blacks but don't care about the rights of multiracial people.

"I only read your first post, Glaucus - that's all I have time for. It's an interesting topic as I have an insight into the 'mixed' race thing being 1/8 Maori and growing up in an Anglo Saxon dominated city. I find it hard to choose the right box to tick. I hate it. I just usually create my own box and tick 'New Zealander'."

I am sorry that you have to go through that. I guess it's the same problem with some Australians that are mixed with Aborigine. Here in USA, there are now multiple options to pick from.
Even myspace doesn't seem to acknowledge people of multiracial races. They don't have a multiracial option. I had to check the "Other" box.

"I have a great, great...great grandmother who was Native American and lived on a reservation. I've always had a fascination in Native American culture because of this. What frustrates me is I don't know what tribe. But I've been asked a few times if I was Native American and I love it that someone can see that in me. I hate being classified as "white" because I am proud of the Native American side to me as well. My skin is more of an olive color, yet I'm classified as "white".
And I've been told that unless I have something that proves I am affiliated with a certain tribe, that I have to mark the "white" box. "

My mother told me that I am part Native American from my father's maternal side,and that she can see that in me. She told me that is where I get my high cheekbones from. She said that's it's Cherokee, but I am not sure. I read history of Louisiana where my father was form,and Cherokee weren't there. Choctaw were though. A lot of Europeans are olive colored like many Portuguese,Spanish,Italian,Greek,and others that are considered Mediterranean Europeans. They would be classifed as white or caucasian.

I read that the ancient Romans were olive skinned too.

"I can't say I know what you're feeling... I hate that phrase. Because from what I understand it's a whole different story being black in America. I understand you are mixed, but this is a part of who you are. I watched a movie called The Secret Life of Bee's and it just shocked me. I guess I didn't realize how bad the racism was even in the 60's which wasn't that long ago. There's a part in the movie when the white girl and the black boy go to see a movie and there were different entrances for them both.. just blew me away to watch this. And the 60's was less than 50 years ago. That's not very long to turn such a horrible way of thinking around. I can't see treating another human being this way. The movie was a real eye opener for me."

I saw that movie with my mom,aunt,and cousin when we were visiting my mom in the hospital. I really liked the movie. It was very predictable. I knew that the boy and girl would end up liking each other and would end up getting in trouble because of the Jim Crow segregation laws in the South. I am glad that I didn't live in those days. My biological father did though,being born and raised in Lousiana. I was born only 4 years after the interracial relationship laws were struck down in 1967. I was born in 1971. My parents met in my birthplace, San Francisco in 1970. That city is known for being alternative,liberal,and open-minded. I am actually a 3rd generation Californian (on my mom's maternal side and my mom's paternal side). I am also a 3rd generation San Francisco Bay area person with my mom being born in Oakland and her biological mother being born in San Francisco. I have never been down South either, but I wouldn't mind visiting Louisiana to be learn more about my roots there.

"But anyway.. I'm rambling and getting off topic. I just wanted to empathize with you. It's something that should be changed. We as human beings shouldn't be sorted into specific boxes as the country see's fit... just frustrating..."

You didn't ramble. I am the one that rambles, especially when speaking. hahahahaha.

You were right on topic in regards to not only multiracial,but interracial friendships,relationships. The ultimate reason that Jim Crow segregation laws and the one drop rule (you're part black,and so you're black) were created was to prevent more multiracial people from being born.

This is a thread for any multiracial people talk about their feelings and experiences as a multiracial person and their thoughts of how they identifiy themselves as and feelings about the one drop rule (not just in regards to black but other minority races)

fictional:
Even in Star Trek, Spock had conflict of being half Vulcan and half Human. As much as he tried to identify as only Vulcan, his human half would come out in some way, especially when situations made him more emotional

There is no telling how many human-alien mixed people will be born in the future that will defy the boundaries of racial categories. Maybe there are some that exist today.

Raymond

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

posted January 20, 2010 03:35 PM         

2 Unlimited. They are multiracial. They are in the Netherlands.

I like their song, Faces. It's like a message about peace,love,harmony,and equality of the races
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83WaVaP9S9E

The rapper's name is Ray,and the singer's name is Anita

a few of penpals that I wrote in the mid 1990's thought I look like Ray too. That was when I had my hair very short on the sies and longer on top. I actually thought it was a compliment too. After all,I love the band. Of course,I am multiracial like him. They obviously thought I look multiracial. A penpal from Portugal told me that I look Cape Verdean with strong Portuguese origins too.

I think that I look the most like my maternal uncle Dino who is my mom's paternal half brother, related to me on the Portuguese. My mother always compared me to him when I was growing up. He is dark as I am too. He's Portuguese,Spanish,and Puerto Rican.

In my teenage years, I have been told that I looked like Taimak from the movie,"The Last Dragon" He is also multiracial. For some reason, I was told that I even looked like El Debarge when I wore my hair long. I have also been told that I look like Stevie B when I had long hair too.

I also love this song by Ice MC. the singer who sings the chorus is multiracial black and white which of course represents the unity of black and white.

Take Away The Colour
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy9iuqcxxSA

Raymond

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

posted January 20, 2010 06:13 PM         

quote:

---

"So are people in the USA American? Or Asian, Hispanic, African?"
Supposedly American, but I don't blame some people that might not like to identify as American like some indigenous people. I always wondered if some Native Americans don't like being referred to as that but as their own tribes like Cherokee,Navajo. After all, the Americas were named after an Italian named Amerigo Vespucci

---

Good point - being out of the States and looking in, it seems that to be "American" is the be all and end all. Thinking about it, I can see why indigenous people would hold on tight to their heritage. So being American ought to be embracing ALL people of ALL heritages.

I would think it would be hard to for Washington to make decisions about going to war if ALL heritages and their philosophies on world peace were considered.

posted January 20, 2010 06:15 PM         

There must be a way of finding out!!!

posted January 20, 2010 06:39 PM         

I'm sorry that you even had a bad dream about this.

I see Denzel as a good-looking and intelligent man and a great actor. It was a meant as a compliment!
And it is completely unrelated to skin color.

If Denzel painted himself blue - it wouldn't change my initial comments.
I wasn't comparing your skin tones.. just your overall appearance and attitude.

posted January 20, 2010 06:49 PM         

I feel terrible that I didn't ask my grandparents more questions when I was younger. Now they are gone and I'm left with all these questions.

And it's funny how you say people tick you as Native American for your high cheek bones. When I ask what made people ask me the "Are you part Native American" question, the response is ALWAYS well you have high cheek bones lol.

And that movie I spoke of really affected me. I was really upset after watching it. I just can't imagine someone treating others in such a way. Like when Jennifer Hudson's character was beat up...THAT really upset me the way people passed by or stood around like it was nothing. Just horrible.

posted January 20, 2010 06:56 PM         

I agree with you 100 percent. I don't think USA is all that great. There is so much crime and violence here. So many children are being drugged up for being different. Gays can't even marry each other,treated like 2nd class citizens. Racism is still a big problem here in USA. Sexism is also a big problem. The perceptions of how much racism greatly differs between blacks and whites. I read an article about a survey that they took. I live in a predominantly black community called Oak Park here in Sacramento,California. It's very pro-black. There is a lot of pride in being Black than being American here.

The whole idea of American values is something that a lot of Americans of color disagree with.

I don't even observe July 4th as Independence Day because it wasn't that way for both Blacks and Native Americans. Blacks were slaves and Native Americans were treated like unwanted foreigners in their own land. I see July 2nd as Independence Day,and that's because Civil Right Act happened on July 2, 1964. With it being 2 days before Independence Day, I just celebrate it on July 4th. hahahhahaa Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. thought that July 4th Independence Day had no meaning in the lives of Blacks in USA.

"I would think it would be hard to for Washington to make decisions about going to war if ALL heritages and their philosophies on world peace were considered."

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke out against the Vietnam War,and said that US government was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.

I wish US government would mind their own business and let people do with their own stuff. I don't see why we have to be the patrol nation. In some ways, I feel that we are hypocrites.

"I really wish American Politicians and international media sources reminded the rest of the world that the ultimate decisions do not reflect the thoughts of all people on American soil."

I am with you on that. There is so much discord between the Democrats and Republicans. It's the "us versus them" syndrome that is very pervasive in American politics. I am getting tired of it, especially with the political health care fiasco that's going on right now. I thought about switching to Green Party,but they are such a minority party.

Raymond

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

posted January 20, 2010 07:58 PM         

quote:

---

I watched a movie called The Secret Life of Bee's and it just shocked me. I guess I didn't realize how bad the racism was even in the 60's which wasn't that long ago. There's a part in the movie when the white girl and the black boy go to see a movie and there were different entrances for them both.. just blew me away to watch this. And the 60's was less than 50 years ago.

---

Strangely, this didn't occur to me, though it should've. Because most footage of the time is shown in B&W (no pun intended), I keep thinking of it as more "50s." It just seems like a different world so it's hard for me to connect it to today.

Thing is I used to have a documentary about the history of marijuana in the USA, especially in the 20th century. It included propaganda given out. One of them I thought was really bad as it depicted a bunch of kids having fun. The kids were very laid back and it just looked fake, but still they were playing their own instruments, dancing, casually taking off their clothes with each other, etc. I thought this was bad not only because it's not what most people I've known to experience with pot (and certainly not my own experience with it), but because if I saw that I'd WANT to try it. Seriously, it was along the lines of many beer commercials, just less manic. And having a stern adult narrator condemn it would only add to its appeal to rebellious youth, I'm sure.

posted January 20, 2010 08:13 PM         

I thought some people were miscast. I thought Jean Grey was too old and looked older than Scott Summers. Wolverine is supposed to be 5'2 not 6'2 like Hugh Jackman. biracial Halle Berry didn't look African to be Storm who is an African.

They TOTALLY jacked up the Phoenix saga. She was supposed to have the power of a goddess that she devoured a whole star system in the comics. She was no joke. Wolverine wouldn't have been able to kill her like he did in the movie. She didn't even have the psionic phoenix bird itself surrounding her. That was the big part about her identity as the phoenix.

according to what the comics say:
Logan aka Wolverine is Canadian
Ororo aka Storm is African

Raymond

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

posted January 20, 2010 09:30 PM         

my experience of being this growing up is that is much weirder when the genetics of your ancestry make you end up looking totally different from almost everyone in your family. my great grandmother was white but the rest of the family afterwards (mom and dad's side) is mostly chinese.

the white features persist very strongly and dominate the females in the family the most. i think what made me feel alienated growing up was i didn't look like my parents or my siblings or anyone really in my family. none of us look alike first of all. me and my sister look more white/asian but i stand out more.

what made me more alienated was that all the stereotypes people say asian people should look like. i always felt left out or didn't understand why i didn't have the typical facial and physical features of an asian girl. but i knew why because i'm part white.

i was even more alienated in that everywhere i go, strangers and coworkers and whoever would always ask me if i was part white or who's white in my family. i mean, all my years, anyone will ask. cashiers, customs agents, doesn't matter where or who and in what city or country i'm in. i always get that whole are you part white or mixed? although, in europe people want to guess the asian side, in north america, people want to guess the white side. people seem fascinated that i'm white/asian. it's very weird for me to have people stare at me and just ask it of me to my face.

i have to admit that i wouldn't care if i was part white if i didn't have evidence of it physically. like if i looked 100% asian both in facial features and physical stature, i wouldn't be inclined to drag my family's history out to explain why i have white features or very obvious white/asian features.

posted January 23, 2010 02:04 PM         

when i look at mick jagger, a war baby, i always had to wonder where he got those lips, that pasty little english boy...and it is not just botox that has made big-lipped white people more plentiful over the last 40-odd years...

as a young person i identified myself as irish/russian (mostly) and my peers all referred back to their ancestors' countries of origin too.

my grandson his "half and half" black and white, but his father is a dark-skinned mixture of black, white, puerto rican and probably native too.

my point is that we are all mixed and putting ourselves in boxes is not an AMERICAN idiosyncracy ... paris has its "latin" "algerian" etc "quarters" places where people congregated with other immigrants of their own kind. where at one time one's background was reassuring in giving one roots, now it is considered abusive to refer to people's roots.

we are all people. i would be p'd off if someone compared me to madonna but i would not consider it a racial slur. some people just remind us of other people...