Tragicmulattoes's Blog

June 3, 2010

At Least They Used The Right Racial Slur

I wonder if it’s possible to quantify how much harder he would’ve been fucked up by the IMPD had he been more than “a mutt“:

Brandon Johnson, who is biracial, alleged that some of the five Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officers who arrested him May 16 hurled a slur at him: “mutt.” Johnson said the officers punched, kicked and kneed him in the face while he was handcuffed. Prosecutors haven’t formally charged him.

Then again, the author of this article seems to lack the level of “clarity” shown by the police. Later the article states:

Police say the black teen tried to stir up a crowd when officers arrested his younger brother on a burglary charge.

And this warranted a beating?!?!?! Let’s be clear: I know the kid isn’t a saint (who is). But this is nothing less than excessive force. And it happens far less to delinquent White kids than to their Black and Black-ish counterparts. Unfortunately the NAACP seems to be the only organization interested in an investigation. Why? Where are the multicultural and multiracial organizations? Where are the organizations the represent the beige and tan community to which Brandon also belongs?  Why is racial inequality only a Black issue when plenty of “others” still manage to get their asses kicked? I really want to know.

The comment section of that article shouldn’t surprise any of you either. I’m too tired to pontificate on that. I’ll just say the rhetoric is really familiar.

Advertisements

May 21, 2010

Mixed Race Mixed Logic

Filed under: mulatto misconceptions — tragicmulattos @ 1:25 am
Tags: , , ,

This blog will not be easy for certain types of people to digest. I knew that going in, but I felt like their was a void in the blogosphere-an omission of truth that needed to be addressed. I hope this blog is filling that void.

I am NOT against the mulatto/mixed race/biracial identity.

I am against the anti-black subtext that permeates their rhetoric. I am against the black-blaming that is nearly ALWAYS implied by mulatto activist when trying to explain the sorry state of mulatto identity development. I am against the ideological ambiguity and fence-riding. I am against cowardice.

It is rare that I encounter a blog free of one of my aforementioned gripes. Recently, I came across a post by TheMulatto entitled Mulatto and African American Coexistence. I thought, “this could be good”.

Spoke to soon.

I *think* the point of this post is to opine that African-American is a broad category that includes people of distinct races, therefore mulattos are African Americans but they are not Black. I wish I could summarize why this post is ridiculous, but it’s so purposefully confusing and opaque, I decided to just pull out the parts that I find “innerestin'”

The problem with the African-American label is that it has become synonymous with black and only with black to the degree that the two words are used interchangeably. To be African-American is to be black, but to be African-American is also to be an American of African ancestry; and the two explanations are not the same despite many people assuming it is.

Where do I begin? This blogger clearly has little if any knowledge of the history of the term “African American”. It is inherently meant specifically for Black people. To be even more specific, it is particularly meant for Black people who are indigenous to the American political construct-the BLACK descendants of African Slaves in the United States. Therefore it is true-not all Blacks are African American (by it’s classic definition, though some Black immigrants and their descendants come to identify culturally as African American), but all African Americans are Black. And no matter what Charlize Theron or Teresa Heinz identify as, the term African American will NEVER apply to their children. One must be Black identified to be African American. And like the number of Whites who express disdain for the label by claiming “we’re all African”. I politely remind them, “not my kind of African”.

A self-identified mulatto is, by virtue of the primacy of the mulatto identity, “HALF African American”. Not African American. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. An African American of mixed heritage (Jasmine Guy) is African American/Black, as that is her primary style of identification. The term African American is a DIRECT result of Black political consciousness and Pan Africanism. While some Blacks in America do not identify with the term, those who DO understand that, like the mulattos struggling to name themselves and claim their own identity, Blacks needed to name themselves with the same dignity and consideration that others afforded their history. And the key point is that they needed to finally *name themselves*. African American is a contemporary concept for contemporary Blacks. Black folks would have died of laughter if you mentioned the term 100 years ago.

This is why many people believe that identifying as Mulatto is an attempt to deny one’s blackness and connection to the black community, an attempt to escape racism or discrimination. This belief has been crucial in keeping countless Mulattoes in a state of self-hate and ignorance regarding who they truly are.

So if someone self-identifies with one race, they are automatically ignorant and self hating? The hypocrisy knows no bounds….

The reality of the situation is that Mulattoes and blacks both share the African-American label because, despite a few differences, both have a shared history of slavery and oppression. However, sharing the African-American label is not the same as assuming that Mulattoes and blacks are both part of one race, or that both are one and the same. The African-American label doesn’t erase the existence of Mulattoes, to the dismay of many.

I wonder who these “dismayed many” are…I digress.

Slavery and oppression are only a component of the African American identity. After all, there are those who identity fully and solely as White who have Black ancestry. Ancestry is part of it. Who are you TODAY as a result of that past-is what matters. The “black when I feel like it” rhetoric is present here. Black people know they are Black because of what they experience TODAY. It’s MUCH MORE than a collective memory. If it doesn’t apply to you, that’s okay too.

We must change the word African-American from exclusively meaning black, so that Mulattoes can feel free identifying with who they truly are without threatening and/or denigrating our black brothers and sisters.

At the very least, rest assure that identifying as Mulatto doesn’t mean the end of the African-American identity, doesn’t mean the end of the African-American cohesion, doesn’t mean that it’s an attempt to escape from our shared and sad past.

An American Mulatto is an African-American, but an African-American can be either black or Mulatto. It has always been like this at the biological level, it’s now time that we accept this reality at the social and psychological level as well.

I’ve never gotten the sense that mulattoes were trying to escape their past. Now the present…I’m not so sure. These identities are much more steeped in the world we live in NOW, not a shared ancestry. And let’s not pretend there aren’t perceived (and sometimes real) advantages to a “not-quite-black” identity.

If you are only “half Black” (biologically, socially and psychologically) why do you want to be African American anyway? Why aren’t you Euro-Afro American or something more “accurate”? Why appropriate what Black people have theorized, invented, and claimed for themselves? That appropriation sounds like a “threat” to me.

May 16, 2010

Apparently I’m Not The Only One…

Who can see Biracial Tiffany’s raison d’etre. Like all groups, biracial people are not monolithic. However, the rhetoric that dominates the multiracial movement would have you believe that most are whiny racists. Losangelista blogged about two biracials doing too much-trying too hard-to identify in a way that she found disingenuous. It was refreshing to come across a blogger that seems to have it figured out. Here is an excerpt from her post:

...But unlike Scotty, who felt on his empty gun holster at the mere insinuation that he was anything other than black, Tiffany Jones seems to be bending over backwards in her desire to say “I’m not black.”

This may not have been her intent but while watching Tiffany’s film, underneath her assertions that she’s “not black” or “just black”, I heard someone saying, “I don’t want to be black because blackness is inferior.”

In my own experience as someone with one white parent and one black parent, I’ve met a few other biracial folks who act like they’ve been shortchanged by life because they were given a black mom or dad instead of two white parents. You get the sense that they want to say they’re biracial, not necessarily because they want to acknowledge all aspects of who they are ethnically or racially, but, because they are, deep down, ashamed of their blackness and wish there was some way they could make it go away.

Tiffany’s vibe took me back to the days when I’d hear other biracial girls telling girls with two black parents that they were better than them: better hair, better looking, smarter, less black. It took me back to why folks would meet me and say, “I thought you’d think you’re all that just because you’re mixed.”

Yes, Tiffany can be as proud of her whiteness as she wants to be, but just as Scotty had to say over and over that he was “black”, Tiffany announcing over and over that she’s white lacks authenticity to me. To me, it’s all about intent. Why do you want to be white? And if Tiffany can finally get the world to say, “Yes, honey, you’re white!” will she be happier and more comfortable with herself?

I also think there’s a difference between a healthy pride and an inherent sense of superiority. I am very very proud of being half Irish. If someone asked me to say I’m not part Irish, I’d probably draw a big shamrock on my face right in front of them. However, that pride does not and never will supersede the affection and downright admiration I have for my black ancestry.

I must say, Tiffany gives the impression that her mother wasn’t much of a winner. And if I ever get around to posting about Debra J. Dickerson’s “gift” to her biracial children, you’ll come to find that many Black women in interracial relationships are just as incompetent at dealing with race in their mixed race families as their white counterparts. In fact, this woman might be Tiffany’s mom.

May 14, 2010

AD Powell: Still Begging for a Bone

http://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/anatolebroyard.jpg

As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is no mulatto more tragic that AD Powell. As more articles flood the internet in response to (or critique of) Obama’s census choice, I knew it was a matter of time before AD got whiff of the debate. And boy did she. She’s also using the name “Pad Powell”. What’s also funny about AD is, she truly believe that no one can challenge her racial logic. She brings forth the case of Anatole Broyard, and I suspect AD and Anatole had a few things in common. Anatole was known to have a subtle but noted dislike for Black literary circles, and AD makes it no secret that she would be a paid Klan member if…well…they actually admitted White mulattos. She has posted this rant on several sites, but I found this in response to a Washington post op-ed piece.

I propose that we contrast Obama with the late New York Times book critic Anatole Broyard. Obama was born into and reared in a Hawaii-based white-identified family and had no ties of blood or culture to the native “African American” community. Broyard was born in New Orleans to a Creole family falsely labeled as “Negro” by the racist government of Louisiana, which was determined to subject its mixed-race Creole population to a documentary genocide of forced assimilation into the “black” Anglo population/caste.

“Documentary genocide” is a pseudo-intellectual way of saying mulattoes were metaphorically “killed” because they were not documented according to AD Powell’s contemporary standards. We also know this to be partially untrue of Louisiana, often known for the odd and sometimes contradictory laws and social practices when it comes to race- especially those who were racially ambiguous. AD wants

Obama left Hawaii with the intention, according to his autobiography, of finding a “racial community” of people who looked like himself. Broyard, whose family moved to New York City when he was a small child, refused to self-police himself and accept a “Negro” or “colored” classification. In the free environment of New York, he chose to be identified as white. Indeed, his parents had themselves moved back and forth across the color line because they also had European phenotypes. Obama married a woman “blacker” than himself and produced two children who look “black” to most Americans. Broyard married a woman “whiter” than himself (Norwegian-American) and produced two children who look totally white to most Americans. Why is Obama praised for moving toward “blackness” while Broyard is demonized by the black and white liberal intellectual elites for moving toward “whiteness”? How about some equal rights here? I would be far more impressed by an open defense of Broyard’s whiteness than I am by Obama’s election. White racism has always rested on the assumption of white racial purity. Obama claims that he is “black” because he “looks black.” Why wasn’t Broyard “white” because he “looked white”?

The fact that Broyard and Obama’s circumstances are interpreted as similar should tell you that AD is not working with a full set of marbles. Although I hate to engage in presentism when analysing the life of Anatole, for the sake of AD’s argument I will mention some glaring facts that AD conveniently overlooked. First, Obama has never denied/degraded/lied about the existence of his White/non Black family. It is common knowledge that his mother his White and his siblings are partially Asian. Anatole cut ties with his first wife and child, his mother and his sister (who ALL lived in the city where he worked). He hid is Black ancestry from his own children until his deathbed. His deathbed. His blackness was such a shameful DISEASE to him, that he could only force himself to speak of it to his own children as he was dying. Anatole was notably MUTE during the civil rights movement, not a word (orally or literary) on the subject matter, despite having a Black child. Even if he felt no connection to Blackness himself, SURELY any sane human would be concerned about achieving a good future for their child. Broyard was more concerned about preserving whiteness for his White wife’s children in Connecticut. He was also known to be much harsher on aspiring Black authors (you know house niggas don’t like competition). Is it safe to submit the possibility that Anatole was not a hero, but a coward? He was not a revolutionary. He was not a positive White mulatto prototype. Not that Obama is perfect, but he certainly wasn’t that either.

Finally, much of the response to Obama’s black identity has been negative, and the responses to those responses have been positive or ambivilent. How AD’s jumbled brain interprets this as praise is beyond me. She continues:

Liberal columnists like Huffman should be defending the Broyards of this country and other victims of “ethnic rape” from a powerful “black elite” who want to force others into their “race” and blame whites for it.

Remember when I said mulattoes have a hard time opposing Whites (and this makes sense because you cannot oppose Whiteness if you want a part of it)? Here we go again. Even when the White author of the op-ed used his own intellectual faculties to come to a conclusion about race in America, the tragedy that is AD Powell found a way to blame the “black elite”-going so far as to call it rape. RAPE. And rather than wondering why in “free New York” Anatole couldn’t just be a White man with obvious Black ancestry and still be White to WHITE New Yorkers, Powell must blame Blacks for the way Anatole is remembered. SMH.

I hope AD finds peace. Or at least, a more lenient Klan chapter.

April 21, 2010

“If I Applied For a Loan”…

Filed under: Uncategorized — tragicmulattos @ 2:51 pm
Tags: , , , ,

I just found an interesting article from the associated press. Yes, the census/race topic is definitely a “dead horse”, but every once in a while a new article has under-explored elements worth looking at. I found some aspects of this article pleasing, but like most articles on multiracialism, a few significant things were left out. Some highlights I found interesting:

It seems as though the Black-identified biracials in the article recognize the social reality of race:

“Being black in this country is a political construct,” she said. “Even though my father is white and I have half his genes, when I apply for a loan, when I walk into the car lot, when I apply for a job, they don’t see me as half white, they see me as black. If you have any identifying characteristics, you’re black.”

Of course, this will not be the reality for all multiracials, but it shifts the discussion away from this “denial of truth” rhetoric and towards a “recognition of personal truth” rhetoric. If you see the photo above, it’s pretty clear her *racialized* experience will be one more closely aligned with a person of color. The article also throws a wrench in the discussion and highlights a Black-identified White man:

Tony Spearman, author of “Why Am I Black,” was born to two white parents. He grew up in a mostly black town, worked at a historically black college, taught physics to predominantly black students.

On every census since 1996, Spearman has marked one box: black.

Sigh…

I would love to know more about this character. I suppose every system of thought has it’s abusers.

I would have liked to hear from White-identified individuals with Black heritage. Contrary to media filtering, they DO exist, and they are much more common than we would like to believe. I think the focus on those who are Black-identified serves to fuel population decline hysteria among some Whites. That’s why I appreciate the article acknowledging that the White construction of biracials as non-black is also a “twist in the one-drop rule”. Often articles frame the racial views of Whites towards biracials as progressive, when in actuality it’s not that clear-cut no matter how you look at it. Some of the anti-Obama Whites actually see his racial classification as proof of an affront to Whites, while simultaneously supporting conditions and ideologies that perpetuate the need for racial constructs to begin with. Basically he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.

In my first post I discussed the roots of the modern multiracial movement as a White female effort. This is why I say this movement is fundamentally White in ideology, and embeded in a lot of the “feel-good” rhetoric, is old notions of race, racism, and racial heirarchy. Be vigilent about that, because it usually sounds like it makes sense. One individual interviewed for the article is actually the son of the founder of one of the largest multiracial organizations. And yes, his mother is a White woman. Here’s his philosphy on race:

“Say you’re wearing a black-and-white shirt. Somebody asks, ‘What color is your shirt?’ It’s black and white. There you go. People ask me, ‘What race are you?’ I say I’m black and white. It’s that simple,” said Graham, a 25-year-old sales consultant from Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Why didn’t I think of that?

Let me know if ya’ll catch anything!

April 20, 2010

It’s Black People’s Fault

Filed under: Uncategorized — tragicmulattos @ 7:15 pm
Tags: , , , , , ,

https://i0.wp.com/www.blicious.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/84979095_10.jpg

mulattoxbeauty seems to be a bit young and naive, so I am considering this as I go through her recent post. When one reaches biracialtiffany’s age, it becomes tragic.

I have not written much on the “one drop fallacy”. That is, the belief that if you call a so-called mixed person simply Black or White, you are “one dropping” them. Many members of the mulatto movement seem to lose the ability to understand argumentation when you call Barack Obama Black. One can disagree with the GROUNDS of an argument, but agree on the CLAIM. An unrelated example:

My friend Jen and I believe homosexuality is normal (for some).  We share the same Claim. However, our grounds for believing this claim are very different, and actually may contradict each other. Jen believes sexuality is entirely scientific/chemical/uncontrollable. I do not. I believe the desire to be sexually active may be inherent and uncontrollable, but I believe there is a significant amount of social influence that helps us determine who/what we are sexually attracted to. This varies from person to person, but ultimately it is not totally natural (hetero or homo). Much of our sexuality is learned. I rely much more on social constructivist beliefs than Jen does. However, we have the same bottom line: being gay for some is normal.

Back to the topic.

Just because Barack calls himself Black, does not mean you have to call yourself Black. It does not mean he supports the one drop rule either. Same conclusion. Different reasons.

In actuality, bloggers like mulattoxbeauty support the racist grounds of the one drop rule (that we are inherently different racially) by insisting on defining certain people by racial labels they may not identify with. Mulattoxbeauty states:

Black and White homes are very different.

When I asked her *how* they differ, and how she would know, my post got deleted (sounds familiar? As I said in my first post, they aren’t interested in thinking). I am actually aware that many African Americans have different social traditions than White Americans. But there is no typical White or Black home. PERIOD. I asked mulattoxbeauty  what makes Black and White homes different that can’t be explained by regional, economic, class differences. Especially American Blacks and Whites, who are far more similar than even they would like to believe (some White Americans tend to actually believe they are more similar to Europeans than their own neighbors-if you can believe it). As you’ve probably guessed, I got no answer. Because she really doesn’t know. She goes on to state:

How can he claim being African-American simply, he wasn’t even raised to experience anything dealing with being African-American?

Because you have to be RAISED to experience blackness. LMAO. So, if a Black child is adopted by Whites, he will be blissfully unaware of his Blackness for the rest of his life. That is, until the evil darkies FORCE him to identify as Black. Mulattoxbeauty, in her naivete, believes it is the Black American political force that MADE him choose Black. Not the fact that he pretty much looks Black and is treated as such. She says:

I personally believe that President Obama was obligated to live up to and take the title of being only African-American. Therefore, I’m sure he knew that when it came to checking his race on his Census form; it was going to be controversial. If Obama, denied being the first African-American President I am sure that a vast majority of the Black Community would be upset with him.

And there it is folks. Someone who does NOT identify as Black, does NOT live in a Black home (by her admission) and I am willing to bet does NOT know the majority of black people, is sure about how the majority of Blacks feel. I bet Michelle withholds sex any time he refers to his White family. I bet Malia shrieks in horror anytime he makes mutt jokes. I bet he’s just pretending (eye roll).

And what’s funny is, she doesn’t see the hypocrisy. She (and others like biracialtiffany) doesn’t see that when you attempt to exercise control over someone else’s choice, you are doing exactly what you say others do to you.

Also, as I stated in my FAQ section, mulattos simply don’t question society-particularly white society-matter when thinking about his decision. Of all the racial vitriol spewed at Obama, is it towards his Whiteness or Blackness? Is it only “half the hate” any other Black man would face? I doubt it. But Mulattoxbeauty is only concerned with those menacing darkies who forced an Ivy-league educated lawyer to be Black.

Tragic Indeed.


April 11, 2010

What Some Folks Don’t Understand…

Filed under: Media,mulatto misconceptions — tragicmulattos @ 6:56 pm
Tags: , , , , , ,

We’ll Tell You If You’re Black Or Not

*****This is NOT my Article*****. This is an excellent response to John Judis, written by Ta-Nehisi Coates is a senior editor for The Atlantic.

Apr 9 2010, 10:00 AM ET

From John Judis, noted scholar of black identity:

When asked about his race on the census form, Barack Obama, the child of a white Kansan and black African, did not take the option of checking both “white” and “black” or “some other race.” Instead, he checked “black, African American or Negro.” By doing that, Obama probably did what was expected of him, but he also confirmed an enduring legacy of American racism…
In its American incarnation, blackness emerged as a social category in the seventeenth century as part of Southern whites’ attempt to justify the economic and social subordination of Africans who had been brought to the country in bondage. The legal interpretation of blackness was accompanied by laws barring miscegenation between whites and blacks. The one-drop rule endured after the Civil War and after emancipation as a justification of racial segregation and of the tiered economy of the sharecroppers….
By denying the existence of race, one denies the existence of racial inequality. Yet by using the constructed language of race, one perpetuates invidious racial distinctions. Obama faced this dilemma when he chose how to designate himself on the census. And he may have done the right thing–but only in the short run. If racism is finally to disappear, so must the peculiar logic of blackness.

The claim that biracial African-Americans who identify as such are confirming “an enduring legacy of American racism,” is so broad as to be meaningless.Taken on face value, it can be applied to any American who checks any race on the census form, since our concept of race, itself–not just biraciality–is “an enduring legacy of American racism.”

But it’s telling that Judis is only interested in one side of the ledger–he wags his finger at the “peculiar logic of blackness,” but has nothing to say about the peculiar, and at times malicious, logic of whiteness. Shifting with the decades and the mores of the country, “whiteness” is as invented and dubious as the one-drop rule. But Judis does not think that referring to John F. Kennedy as “white” is somehow a problem. He is not asking what Joe Lieberman checked on his census form.
Judis view of race originates in the sense that the best way to view black identity is through the lens of white racism. It’s broadly true that the very existence of the descendants of Africans in this country is “an enduring legacy of American racism.” But it’s also an enduring legacy of a lot more–the human capacity for ingenuity, the enduring resonance of the American idea, and in cases like these, the remarkable ability to wave aside intellectuals who believe that black people are ill-equipped to define themselves, and must defer to the divine majesty of What White Folks Think. If “What What White Folks Think” holds that Barack Obama isn’t black, what right does he, much less other black people, have to consider himself as such?
As an aside, this is an incredibly callous display of arrogance. In fascinating fashion, Barack Obama has written about creating identity, of finding some of himself in Malcolm X’s acts of reinvention, in the stability of the Robinson family, in the spirituality and rhythms of  the black church, in the trash-talk of South Side basketball courts, in the courage of the Civil Rights pioneers, all the while holding on to the mother who raised him, and grandparents who helped rear him. But John Judis, evidently, knows better.
His response is a caricature of the worst stereotypes of white liberalism. Note the invocation of a “Marxist View Of Race.” Note the sense that blackness is strictly the work of “Southern Whites.” Note the arrogance of assuming that “blackness” is defined by 17th century racists, and that the people being defined have no agency. In one fell column, Judis anoints himself High Arbiter of Blackness, and then dismisses Obama’s complicated and arduous process as the president simply doing “what was expected of him.”
The only appropriate response to this sentiment is to regrettably resort to the language of my folks and ask the following–Who the fuck is John Judis?

April 9, 2010

Tragic Mulatto of the Day: Nicole Richie

Nicole-Richie-Brenda-Richie-Childhood-Photo-cropped-040810wtmk

I think Nicole Richie was a beautiful child. I have little appreciation for the intentionally emaciated look, so I am not a fan of her recent brand of “attractive”. I don’t think she grew up to be a great beauty, and I don’t think her preference for the Eurocentric look suits her. But to be critical of her childhood pic over eyebrows and hair? Goodness! From her official website:

How Many Things About this Picture are Just Wrong?

April 8, 2010 / 6 Comments

1. My eyebrows

2. Matching outfits

3. My afro

4. The 1989 “serious face”

Is a little brunette girl with wavy hair (I mean, did the years of drug use really ruin her ability to spot an afro??) really SO wrong? Consider the way she has looked since she started starving herself:

https://i0.wp.com/www.chinadaily.com.cn/showbiz/images/attachement/jpg/site1/20090921/0023ae606f170c217b8c0b.jpghttps://i1.wp.com/bittenandbound.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/nicole_richie.jpg

https://i2.wp.com/www.moviestuffandmore.com/images/soundboards/mr%20burns.jpg

I would take young Nicole ANY day of the week. Bushy eyebrows in all. It’s clear what beauty means to her, and that’s not totally her fault. It is definitely a pervasive standard of beauty that all women have to deal with, and I’m sure playing Paris Hilton’s fat funny brown sidekick helped feed the skinny/blonde imperative. However, I was a little surprised by this tiny revelation. But I guess not really. She is quick to point out that she is “Black” (I’m sure for it’s novelty value), but her world outside of her adopted parents is entirely White. This isn’t really a problem, in fact it could be a matter of unconcious circumstance…but I doubt it.

There is nothing wrong with an Afro Nicole. But there is something wrong with that lifetime supply of peroxide you keep within arm’s length.

April 8, 2010

The Multiracial Utopia Myth

I am consistently confused by the persisting idea that a multiracial identity is a progressive racial concept, especially since there is innumerable historical evidence to the contrary. Person-for-person, I would have to say that the multiracial people are no more or less likely to harbor racial prejudice than everyone else. This isn’t a good or bad thing. It is simply indicative of our common reality-we all function under the same racial system and ideologies, and even when you attempt to move within it, you are STILL WITHIN IT. So while taking my daily blog stroll, I happened upon Tiffdjones post, and I figured I will discuss this on my blog. Here are some of her musings on multiracialism and the census:

I thought I was over the Census, but my interest keeps getting piqued despite my best efforts to ignore the chatter.  What I’m most intrigued by at this moment is the notion that in the next decade or two, if we keep changing our attitudes and understandings for the better, a majority of Americans could come to view themselves as mixed race.  And by that I mean Americans who today consider themselves to be exclusively white or black despite the abstract knowledge that we are all mixed up to some extent.

Anyone who has read this blog knows that I don’t think attitudes have changed for the better. If you need a refresher on that, just scroll down. But what makes me chuckle is the idea that “the majority of Americans will come to view themselves as mixed race”. This statement implies a few things:

1. That people don’t recognize the social and economic value of Whiteness, and have no interest in maintaining it. I’m not just talking about the Klan. I’m talking about well-meaning White folks. And the vast majority of them. Despite the current trend in labeling Black people as interracial haters, White people are still the least likely of ANY group to marry inter-racially or approve of such pairings. Perhaps if your world consists entirely of mixed race discourse, you may forget that the rest of America doesn’t operate from that perspective and have little interest in doing so. “The next decade or two?” Please don’t hold your breath.

2. If by some crazy chance the majority of Americans DO come identify themselves as mixed race, it would contradict many of the core ideological ideas that the multiracial movement is founded upon. The crux of the mulatto identity is the concept of difference. An *essential* difference in experience. A genetic, predetermined, inescapable truth about their existence that cannot be experienced by those are not of that label. What would this new all-ecompassing mixed race identity do to the “real mixed race” identity…if everyone jumps in the pot? Often during these discussions, when a Black commenter mentions “everyone is mixed”, multiracials interpret this to be a strategy to obscure their distinction from Blackness. Now the obscuration of difference is something we should look forward to? I don’t get it.

The post goes on to say:

And if that paradigm shift happens there won’t be much use in classifying ourselves in terms of “race” because we will see ourselves as generally more similar than different regardless of color/phenotype.

Yes, because this has been the case in countries with large multiracially identified populations…le sigh. I’m looking at you Brazil & The Dominican Republic.

This is why I do what I do. People have known for nearly a hundred years that we are scientifically the same regardless of phenotype (mind you the multiracial identity also relies on scientific/genetic racial concepts-hypocrisy  much??). Yet race and racism persists. Despite over a century of terms like octaroon, quadroon, mulatto, wheatish, half-caste, pardo, coloured, morena, WHATEVER…race and racism persist. And it’s even more vicious in some of the most mixed race societies. Perhaps the REAL problem in all of this is not about the name we give it, but the PURPOSE it serves (and continues to serve). A rose by any other name…. I know I’m not the only one who has thought this through. Why do people in the multiracial movement think this is the first time people have tried to sort this race stuff out, and they’re on the verge of something new? I just don’t get it. This is a repackaging of the color-blind society rhetoric. Color-blindness is a cheap way for some people to ignore the root of the problem by refusing to NAME the problem. It’s like a band-aid on a bullet wound. You can call Jamal and Matt “mixed race” all you want. But as long as Jamal finds it harder to land a job, a cab, or a loan, he will KNOW that he is something that Matt is not, and he will create a word to identify that. Tiff’s post doesn’t touch the foundation of difference. It simply focuses on hoping we won’t have a name for the problem in the future.

And finally the real reason behind the post:

Although I respect Obama’s right (and that of every individual) to self-identify any way he chooses,

Sure you do, lol:

I feel that the checking of just one box is holding us back from reaching that “promised land” where we aren’t so entrenched in these antiquated notions of race and color, but perhaps more interested in heart, spirit, intellect …. Once again I’m a bit speechless because I’m not sure what the world will look like when instinctively and instantly we take people for what the truly are instead of what they truly look like.

I’m nauseous from the thinly veiled “hateration” and  shallow idealism. And this is coming from an idealist. With the stroke of his pen, Obama is holding America back from actualizing our collective mixed race identity (and  developing automatic super powers that allow us to transcend stereotyping and prejudice). Mind you, I am CERTAIN Tiff has never been concerned about the racial identities of any other president or monoracial political figure, nor has she been critical about what their actions have done to polarize Americans along racial lines. Obama checked a box that represented who he truly is in the world he lives in. The census is not a wishing well. It is not a dream keeper. It is not a magic genie that will fix  *behaviors* that centuries have created. I find it funny that many white supremacist take the same stance, and use the same logic when discussing Obama’s identity as those in the MRM. Read any conservative teabagging blog, and there are accusations of dishonesty. I don’t believe this to be coincidental.

April 3, 2010

President Obama Checks Black on Census

Filed under: Snap for the kids — tragicmulattos @ 11:31 pm
Tags: , , , , , ,

This is gonna hurt some feelings….

https://i2.wp.com/clutchmagonline.com/wp-content/uploads/barack_obama_journaltimes_photo.jpg

According to the New York Times President Obama declared himself African American on his census form. No explanation accompanied the article but I am curious to read the online responses to this. It seems as though people (the very people who want the choice to self identify) have a huge problem with his choice. So much so, that many REFUSE to simply call him Black. So I’m sure a few people are (or will be) stewing over this reaffirmation of his identity.

« Previous PageNext Page »