|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
| Moderated by: Saida.M, safetyblitz, Raven, Miss Brighter Days, LadyDay, Kunjufu, Kibibi, Happiness, Dillinger, Breadfruit, Backatya |
Topic closed |
|
| Author | |
|---|
Rockette
Villager
| Joined: | Thursday April 7th, 2005 |
| Location: | New York USA |
| Posts: | 610 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Monday March 27th, 2006 16:22 |
|
Upon realizing how many biracials in America abhor being labelled as black I decided to explore this issue further. I don't have a problem with them being identified differently since they are of mixed races. A good number of them have an unmistakeable distaste for blacks, but they embrace and are extremely protective of their white lineage and are most concerned about preserving it. They also have no problem being favorable towards Latinos, Arabs and East Indians since their phenotype is sometimes very similar. Currently they are mulling various options about how to go about this separation including holding protests and reaching out to mixed race people in the UK. I was wondering if the mixed race segment in the UK are known to harbor the same feelings as those in the US. They now have names for very light biracials (griffe) and for dark (zambos). I suspect the dark ones face some type of discrimination in that community since they are sometimes referred to as "throw backs". It's interesting that many of them feel they are "carrying" the black race, and I just don't get it.
Here are a few comments from various members which reflect their overall sentiment concerning blacks and black men in particular. After that is a post from an African/Canadian man in response to all he read on that site. (FYI...ODR = one drop rule, MGM = multigeneration mixed and FGM = first generation mixed)
Many mulatto women have a preference for white men but we hardly see any media imagery of this in the US. I even go as far and make the very bold statement that most mulatto women would probably prefer mulatto men but we don't see anything of this at all in the media. Why? Because mulattoes are opressed in their identity, black men (generally speaking) keep mulatto men from being represented and take mulatto women for themselves while labelling them black. (or making themselves labelling themselves black for that matter since most of the media is controlled by men)
I think equality has many facetts. Mulattoes are opressed by blacks in many ways. Black men with mulatto women all over the media represent this very well.
I was talking about media imagery, after all it's media imagery that influences a lot of people's choices. These media images together with the absence of mulatto men in advertising and other media only represent this opression. The opression itself of course is the fact that mulattoes are denied their identity by blacks.
I see what you are saying now. Well, people's choices influence media images as well. The ubiquity of the "light-skinned hottie" in music videos and elsewhere, combined with the absence of the "light-skinned pretty boy", is a direct result of the preference for these woman by many black men.
The increase in the influence black folks have in shaping media images of themselves as directors of music videos, as music personalities, as publishers of black-oriented magazines, etc., hasn't led to a significant exclusion of mulatto women. Since these women (and men) are seen as-and in many cases-see themselves as black, they are considered one of the several flavors of black.
Naturally, a problem arises when these men and women do not see themselves as black. But as evidenced by women like Halle Barry, Salli Richardson, and Lonette McKee, many biracial/mulatto women (and men) see themselves as black, and are therefore complicit in the promotion of these images as well.
I agree with you guys on this topic. this is why we need a mixrace catergory box . so black-americans will stop trying to claim anyone who has a drop of black blood. this is the one-drop rule myth that is supported by afro-americans . in my opinion, afro-americans feel that they are the lowest people in the caste system by feeling opressed and shamed of their blackness convinced that they are a ugly people, due to white society. they will try to claim anyone who has a percentage of black in them to feel better about themselves. it's very rare to hear white's supporting the O.D.R .
Specifically to Americans.
From reading these boards it appears there is an ongoing effort to create a separate mulat identity at the expense of American blacks. The truth of the matter is most mulats are indistinguishable from most American blacks. Most American blacks embody hundreds of years of the constant mixing of blacks and whites in the United States and the resultant admixture. Before you start blowing raspberries, let me assert that the United States is fueled by racism.
For any minority in this nation to have any social mobility he must view blacks with disdain. He must be able to collude with whites in institutional racism. Or, bluntly, must use blacks as a stepping stone. Every minority group uses blacks as a stepping stone. In any society, there are always 'N****rs'. 'N****rs' are lowest on the totem pole. Absolutely no one wants such a position.
East Africans have a similar phenotype to mulats, and most are supercilious toward other black Africans. Yet, their identity isn't hinged on maintaining a border between them and other black Africans - they have their country, they have their history, they have their traditions sustaining them. If we took away all charcoaled colored blacks from the US and propped up your much celebrated bronze skinned, Europeanized facial featured brethren, your identity would be come watered down. Now, you'd be compared side-by-side to whites, and any self-esteem gained by "well at least I don't look like blacks" would be lost. At this point you'll undoubtedly say "well, we'd have our own culture to carry us." Unlikely. You wouldn't have the demographic push or sustainability. Sure, in the past, there were, I'm sure, several or so mulat communities or organizations, but they were heavily sustained by "at least we're not black" or "look, white people, accept us cause we're not as black or as ugly as them" mantras. Like I said, that will be lost with blacks gone. Mulats have always been a fraction of the current host black community. Without a black host there wouldn't be a mulat community. For example, take all the Basters from Namibia and stick them in Norway. How long would they last? That coupled with lower birth rates than blacks and inevitable assimilation from the host white community or country.
With that in mind and all bull crap and circumlocution aside, mulats favor dating and procreating with whites - the less negroid looking the offspring the better, so the idea goes. In itself, this isn't wrong but raises an assimilation red flag. If mulats do assimilate they'll actually become 'roons'. In essence, the quintessential 'mulat' will actually be an octaroon. And at this point, since you'll be so close in phenotype to whites, calling oneself a 'mulat' will lose its original zeal - the "half African' label wouldn't be appealing anymore.
Whites would not only assimilate you, but Latinos, namely Mexicans, would become dominate minority players. Trying to push a mulat identity on them would fail. In fact, pushing a mulat identity on Caribbean Latinos with actual visible African ancestry is hard enough. Mexicans, especially the ones running things, are imbued with a fair amount of white genes - the other amount being Amerindian. There is actually a hierarchy in Mexico placing Amerindians on the bottom, and we know who's at top. Mexicans are not keen on claiming African ancestry. Currently they are focusing their efforts on demographically reclaiming the South West United States and with that more political clout - their face will represent Latinos; it already does.
At this point you're going to undoubtedly say "well, we're not pushing a mulatto identity on anyone." That's fine. Perusing these boards I've noticed a sort of 'capturing' of anyone with any black blood and labeling him/her a mulat. You even toy with calling Fidel Castro a mulat even though he is obviously a 'multiracial white'. You 'capture' anyone with black blood be they a quadroon, octaroon etcetera and label them 'mulats' as long as they aren't charcoaled and out of the bush. I agree with A.d. Powell in allowing for a 'multiracial white' identity. Oh wait, unless you insist on "one, two, or whatever drop" these "multiracial whites" as 'mulats'? We can't have that can we? Hmmmm. Another example, Mixedmom, you originally praised your son on another board (he looks white with a tan) for asserting that he's white in defiance of your daughters short-lived assumed black identity. Here, you outright label both your kids mulats. It's OK for mulats to define what 'mulats' are but if someone falls in the American black phenotype range, say Halle Berry, blacks must make sure that person has no recent white ancestry before they try to define her or the mulat police come calling. There is no middle ground here, it seems. Mulats want to define her and blacks want to define her. This creates a classic arm wrestling scenario where the strongest arm wins. And yes, I'm sure you can scrounge up some of your white friends and offer their opinion as proof she is 'mulat.' Fine. But apparently, Blacks won, Halle Berry is seen as a black woman. I understand your hypocrisy full-well. And spare me any contorted, roundabout excuses. Point blank, blacks are on the bottom. And any label other than black is better socially and most times economically since to be black is to be 'against' whiteness. Whites hold almost all power in north America. That's in most cases true and that's life. Fine.
I have given you the solid facts. Undoubtedly and certainly someone will downplay the facts I just gave and try to talk around them. They'll say something like "there's nothing wrong with liking your light-skin or light-eyes." Fine. But you and I know you sure as hell don't want your kids marrying a dark-skinned African American. So let's cut through the bull crap, shall we ladies and gentlemen?
Now, you give us blacks a lot of credit and power on these boards. Hey, thanks! It seems your way "out" is through us. Your whole thing is to detach yourself from the black label. You seem so determined that you've taken on a sort of 'pan-mulatism' or at least hinted at it. The only mantra that will thread such a blanket would be "we are not black at all, we're mulats." Being that blacks have more power, and simply because it's in our best interests and we CAN, we will continue to see those who look black as black. And unfairly, even those with just hint of black, opportunely, will be called black.
Dave, you are more or less the herdsman: more clever than lead by brain power. I admire your temperament. Though, I wonder how long your 'non-racist' policy will last once my herd is gathered. Now, I personally don't hate mulats. I, of course, see most as black. Blacks get racism from every group in America. For someone who is half-black also to defecate on us leads only to a meeting on the battlefield - and this one I think we can actually win. Your passion seems as strong as mine ...Blacks right now have the slight edge, though. But I feel that when mulats start to become militantly racist against blacks, that will be the day blacks wisely stop procreating with whites and peace will be with us all.
P.S. The 5% of mulats mooching off blacks in Haiti are sure having it good. Hmm, Reminds me of a certain people ...
We rise together, we fall together. Captive now, Captive tomorrow, and Captive forever. Why? Because we CAN.
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
|
|
Current time is 21:45 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Join the
Blacknet
mailing list
|
|
