Tragicmulattoes's Blog

November 17, 2012

Dear Keegan Michael Key,

Filed under: Uncategorized — tragicmulattos @ 4:47 am
Tags: , ,

How would you know about angry Black wives? You were discarded by a White woman and a Black man. You were adopted by White people.

You are apparently married to your grandmother:

This is not just a biracial guy problem-using Black women as comedic fodder because they aren’t talented otherwise. It’s really a Black male problem. But since Key makes his bread and butter Cooning and race hustling (like DL Hugley) on Comedy Central, I figured I would post this for the hell of it.

Advertisements

June 24, 2010

When Tragic Mulattos Use Scientific Racism…

To justify their identity, you should be neither surprised or offended. The White supremacist perspective on “racial realism” expresses the belief that race is a biological and scientific reality and that different races have inherent qualities and capacities that can be measured/predicted accurately along those racial lines. This is why you often hear people like AD Powell say “stand on your own genetic feet”, or Mixed White Advocate author Vanguard say “Hey, can you prove YOU’RE NOT inferior?…like other idiotic multiculturalists you deny scientific reality”.  Remember this as you become familiar with their perspectives and goals.

There are actually TWO perspectives on racial realism. According to research conducted by the National Institute of Health, Skin color diversity (and *genetic* diversity) is actually highest among Sub-Saharan Africans. This is important to note because it flies in the face of many assumptions about GENETIC race, and confirms that race is a matter of our social interpretation of our physical world.  This is the version of racial realism generally accepted by the scientific community (and anyone familiar enough with different types of people to know that just because you share skin color/appearance with someone doesn’t mean you are similar). Race is real because we  interact with each other based on assumptions made from appearance. It is a social reality, not a genetic reality. Two perspectives: one social, one genetic.

It’s funny that people who believe they are making “genetic contributions” to the Black race don’t realize their  argument implies that their genetic Blackness (although less visible) “contaminates” the White race, and therefore a racially conscious White society may be right in excluding them. Sounds familiar? This is the scientific premise of the one drop rule. They actually support this logic.

Although they often rely heavily on “scientific” logic to strengthen their argument, this is usually done with strategic omissions of contemporary scientific truth. View the charts below created by Zach/Vanguard (I must commend him for his “passion”):

The second chart is even funnier:

He states the following rationale:

…look at this composite of negro-cauacasian hybrids, negroes from Africa, and caucasians. Note the distinctions in racial phenotype. Color eyes from brown to blue, skin tone from brown to white, thin and medium lips, curly or semi-curly (as opposed to woolly) hair, a protruding nose of moderate or thin width, a rectangular face, unpronounced cheek bones(WHAT? LOL), are all caucasoid or caucasoid derived racial traits. Most are absent in pure negro populations. Now, as you can see, the mixed-race faces span a range of phenotypes between negro and caucasian. Use the perfect averages in the previous slide to evaluate these faces. In the general population, most mixed-race people fall into a range from the midpoint of the “mixed spectrum”, to several faces towards the caucasian pole. This exactly matches their genotypic ancestry, which is approximately 60% caucasian and 40% negro. The near perfect correlation between anthropometry and racial admixture has also been confirmed by scientific studies. Clearly, negro physical traits are neither dominant nor prevailing.

I couldn’t stop laughing when I saw these charts because he claims to be a student of sociology at Western Illinois University. Online universities don’t even play that mess!

Let’s start with his data set: pics of celebrities and google images of Africans, Europeans and Middle Easterners.  It does not occur to him for a second, that there is an inherent bias in the selection of Black Americans and Biracial celebrities as data representative of biracial people. It does not occur to him to at least use the same (or nearly the same) number of faces for each category (not that this would strengthen his conclusions by much), and lastly, if your Whiteness is about your European heritage, why are you using pics of White people who aren’t European at all-some of which coming from populations with non-Caucasian/White admixture? White people are assumed more genetic and phenotypic diversity than their beloved science actually states to be true, and Black people are given less. Coincidence? I doubt it. Even his second computer generated chart gives one typographic visual representation of Blackness and Whiteness (mind you the first and second charts don’t actually support each other when it comes to defining visual Blackness and Whiteness).

Anthropometry has been denounced as an accurate measure of race for generations now. But Vanguard and AD are on a mission to resurrect scientific racism-and use it for their “benefit”.

By the way, here is an African American with significant/recent European ancestry (according to African American lives-“19%”):

What does this tell you about someone’s genes & gene expression? What does it tell you about what someone’s appearance can communicate, and what their biological makeup might be?

It’s a crap shoot.  Just Ask these folks:

There is no chart you can point to (sorry Zach). There is no computer software you can use (lol) to accurately predict what your child will look like, and what social reality they will have due to their looks. According to Zach, the brother on the right should have more claim to his “European heritage” than his apparently “inferior” twin brother who will be relegated to the dreaded “tar bucket”.  These two boys, born at the same time, to the same parents, with the same genetic ancestors.

Can we honestly say that a movement that supports scientific racism  is really a movement that wants an egalitarian racial society and personal identification????

June 21, 2010

Proof Positive

I don’t have much time today so I will return to this (and other stuff) later in the week. In my FAQ section I specifically addressed why I believed the creation of this space was necessary. One of the reasons:

*Tons of loaded racial subtext. In much of the discourse, even when the intention is to be race-neutral, the implicated meanings are often times anti-Black and racist.

I was once asked  how I could “tell” if the anti-Black/racist subtext was intentional. “Maybe they just don’t realize it. How could someone multiracial be racist?”

Well anonymous questioner, here it is. Directly from the mouth of MixedWhite Advocate.com author “Vanguard”. For those of you well versed in biology, sociology, and basic reasoning-brace yourselves for what the American racial system can do to a mulatto’s psyche:

At tragic:

“As I anticipated, his next post falls right into the “it’s black people’s fault” trap (with a quote from Sarah Jane herself-AD Powell). Tje amount of reliance on pseudoscience and self-victimizing is really unbelievable.”

Typical negro defense, when your victims point the finger at the guilty culprits, you cry innocent! “Oh de bad oohh cracka dun did it, chile!”. Please, spare me. Stop creating strawmen, it’s beneath you. I blame liberal Whites first and foremost for letting you negroes get out of control. Don’t flatter yourselves, you couldn’t have done this without their assistance. The second group that’s most to blame, the front line enforcers, are Blacks. Question: how many negroes are up in arms screaming about mulattoes, and how many Whites? Mhmm.

I got a special article just for you people. You’re going to just love it. Innocent, huh?

“There is an obsession with the concept of “inferior Black blood”-not challenging the idea that any blood is inferior, but proving that they don’t have “that much” of it. It’s fascinating, really.”

What’s fascinating is your intellectual dishonesty. Hey, can you prove YOU’RE NOT inferior?….can ya? Please, show me how, because it only makes my position stronger, stupid. You are a negro-apologist extraordinaire. See, you know you’re fucked. History has proven that. 40 years after the civil rights movement and what have you achieved? 10,000 years in Africa and what have you to show for it? Hmm? Right. Oh, wait, it’s all Whitey’s fault! With excuses like that you could make CEO at BP. You are crabs in a bucket. You figure you’ll take down everyone you can out of sheer spite, and perhaps just an inkling of desire for them “white folks genes”. Am I right? Hey, but guess what!! It’s 2010, and the rest of us, well, maybe we have a chance in hell if you would just shut up and stop lying about how inferior we are. We’re done fighting your battles.

“Like you said @ When I read that it was obvious to me that his purpose wasnt freedom of racial association..”

Read: “not identifying as White”.

“Apparently only mulattos who are able to physically express the right genes matter. SMH.”

Oh geez, did you really just say that? Okay, let’s put this in perspective. Whiteness is a heritage which includes but cultural, physical, and invisible genetic traits. Now, if you are lacking in a major part of that, you can’t be PREDOMINATELY WHITE, even if you are Mulatto. That would make no sense, now would it? Right, you don’t believe in Whiteness because like other idiotic multiculturalists you deny scientific reality in order to preserve your fantasy world. But hey, even if I were wrong about physiognomy, so what? It’s only a slight modification of my conceptualization of heritage. I notice that you aren’t defending the basic idea of White heritage, however. I wonder why that might be……

Oh, I know!

It’s because you DESPISE WHITENESS AND WANT TO DESTROY IT. Do you really think that your constant self-qualification as a “freedom of choice” adherent, disguises your true beliefs and intentions? You are a multiculturalist who believes that Whiteness is a made up, psuedo-scientific, crackpot bunch of jabbery-boo, and you hope to replace it with an ultra-inclusive, mixed up, “AMERICAN” identity. How lovely! Well I have news for you, Whiteness ain’t dead, and it ain’t going to be replaced by some silly American Identity nonsense. And just wait, before you retort with the standard regurgitated bullshit about how Whites will never accept me and so on….THEY DO. Of course not all of them, but hey, you got to start somewhere.

One more thing. I have a question for you…

What are you going to do, when we take our blood and accomplishments away from you? Oh, maybe it will be another 30 years, or even 50! But, the history books will be rewritten, it’s only a matter of time. Identities will change. You are losing access to our genetic material. It terrifies you doesn’t it. The color-line isn’t substantially softening between Whites and Blacks, just between “others” and Whites. It seems someone is getting left behind, as it were. Pretty soon you won’t be able to look to a single mixed race face as an emblem of your negro people. No more excuses then, huh. What are you going to do? You had better quit playing basketball and hit the books. You’re kind of short in the success department.

Enjoy your tar bucket.

And there it is folks!


June 19, 2010

New Blog! “Mixed White Advocate”

A new commenter recently informed me that my blog has been discovered by multiracial enthusiasts. I have no problem with that. This blog isn’t meant to be antagonistic. I actually stopped over to the site and saw a lovely thread dedicated to yours truly (erroneously labeling me a mixed identity hater-but I expected the mislabeling and I KNOW it’s intentional). Right under that post was the link to a new (I’m talking BRAND SPANKING, probably inspired by our work here NEW) blog called “Mixed White Advocate”.

Contrary to what may seem logical, I’m actually very excited about this new blog. I don’t post here often, I don’t have the time or desire to make this an everyday thing. But when I am moved to post, it’s not that easy to find information I’m willing to expound on. But with the existence of Mixed White Advocate, I will have access to all the tragedy I need at one web address. It’s a one-stop-tragic-mulatto-stop! How can I be mad at that?

The mixed logic is actually articulated very early on the site. The author opposes the “tar brushing” of mixed people labeled “falsely as racially or ethnically Black”. Yet begs for an unconditional White racial/ethnic identity. You don’t need to be a genius to see the “fuzzy math” here.

I mean, “tar brushing”…seriously??? I can make another post (hell, I can write a BOOK) on the psychology behind  the adoption of this term but I’ll just inform you all of the origins:

Touch of the tar brush
(British) derogatory descriptive phrase for a person of predominantly Caucasian ancestry with real or suspected African or Asian distant ancestry)

Basically, the author pleads for society to let them be White in peace! Don’t remind them of the po’ nigga blood that haunts them. It’s bad enough they shudder into a nervous stuper every time they hear the prefix “Afro” in public!

As I said, I believe one could be “mixed White”, and those who are really don’t need anyones permission to be. I’ve stated that much, and I believe it’s a really bad idea to encourage those who identify as such to do otherwise.  HOWEVER, why be so upset over people who qualify your Whiteness the way that the Whiteness of every non-WASP is qualified? How can one identity be more or less false than the other? The author attempts (emphasis on *attempts*) to make sense out of nonsense in the June 18th post. There are a lot of ideological, terminological and historical flaws throughout the author’s assessment. But make no mistake-this is done intentionally. In order to create a movement you have to have something to move towards (or against). Unfortunately, the tragedy for this movement is that nearly every point under which the author attempts to build ground is shaky or downright false:

For example, Anatole Broyard, Walter White, Danzy Senna, Nicole Richie, all have White appearances and are presented to audiences as “Black” (most of the time). This belief is institutionalized in movies such as “Imitation of Life” and “The Human Stain”, and books such as “Caucasia”, “The Color of Water”, “Half and Half”, and “Their Eyes Were Watching God”.

The author listed people whose lives literally span a century in American history. Two born before the civil rights movement, one the daughter of civil rights activist (and a self-identified biracial), and the last-Nicole Richie- the living embodiment of a person with Black ancestry who is generally racialized as White. Nicole whitens her appearance (see my previous post for pics of her younger days), and it has apparently served her well in reinforcing a White identity. She has been arrested several times and her race is never listed consistently. Sometimes she’s White and sometimes She’s Black.

The bottom line is, only ONE of the aforementioned have been consistently and unequivocally labeled Black. And the one (White) built a professional LUCRATIVE career on his chosen identity. The author omits the plethora of multiracial figures rarely (if ever) labeled or racialized as Black-some of them are basically White: Vin Deisel, Jessica Szohr, Adriana Lima, Jennifer Beils, Wenworth Miller, Slash-all of these people are still alive By the way, LOL!!!

And many of the multiracial figures who are racialized as Black are often “professionally Black” and privately White or non-Black. This means that they understand the racial system and have CHOSEN to work it for their benefit. Who is to blame for that? While I do think Anatole was a coward, I respect the man for not half-stepping about his intentions.

The author gives a list of movies and books, most of which are located historically in pre-civil rights America, before post-modern identities were norm. If I want to build an argument about contemporary domestic abuse in African American homes, I’m not going to direct ya’ll to The Color Purple as evidence, LMAO. What’s going on RIGHT NOW that you can point to?

The author later asked if we’re confused (I see he knows he’s full of shit). He goes on to give an even MORE convoluted example:

substitute two European ethnicities for White and Black. If a person claims to be Irish, and later we find out that they are half German, we do not accuse them of “passing” for Irish. The reason why is that Irish and German are considered equal, and we do not regard the person as an inferior product masquerading as the superior, genuine article. Negro blood is thought to degrade the superior traits of caucasian blood, meaning that only pure caucasians are genuinely European in their cultural, behavioral, physical, and mental qualities. People of mixed origin are not “good enough” for their White heritage, so society assigns them to the Black caste. This practice is morally and scientifically bankrupt.

This is a huge problem with people who are Amero-centric. Americans in general have little-to-no knowledge of European history, therefore ignorance (coupled with arrogance) makes it’s easy to transfer American racial and ethnic logic to another geographic/historical space. The author says that “If a person claims to be Irish, and later we find out that they are half German, we do not accuse them of “passing” for Irish”. In actuality it is not this simple. With the creation of the European Union, on the surface Europeans have a solid identity. In REALITY there are very solid ethnic hierarchies still in place, particularly between Eastern and Western Europeans. Polish immigrants in Ireland and the UK are often the targets of discrimination and ethnic isolation. So this hypothetical German may have gotten off easy, but the Poles in Ireland and the UK will tell you a different story.  Second and third generation Irish people in the UK often find themselves negotiating their ethnic identities the same way biracial people do. They are not readily accepted as British through and through. My beloved James McAvoy’s wife (Ann Marie Duff) discusses this. Has this mulatto ever left the America????

Historically  (the author mentions the ODR was law until the 1980s-30 years ago BTW) the White majority saw a NEED for distinct racial lines, especially between White and Black caste. Currently, while this need still exists, they go about expressing it very differently. If you look White and do not challenge Whiteness (there is a difference between being White and Whiteness), you CAN be White with known Black ancestry. You can be “qualified White”, like Jews, like White Latinos-but White nonetheless.

The post continues with a series of purposely narrow definitions and false assumptions:

Consider the concept of “Whiteness”. White” means a person of European heritage, or a person of Caucasian race or appearance. “Heritage” refers to the biological and cultural traits which we acquire from our parents and community. The “One Drop” logic reduces European heritage to a racial origin that mixed people, especially those with an intermediate appearance, are unable to “genuinely” appropriate. But heritage is irreducible to a racial origin, as race does not determine culture (i.e., our learned patterns of thought and behavior).

Here is where the author become purposefully unclear. The One Drop rule consolidates mixed racial heritage to one racial heritage (Black). However, the One Drop Rule could NEVER consolidate ethnic heritage  into one heritage. Thats like trying to force a fish to be a dog. The only systematic government attempt at this was imposed on the indigenous children removed from their homes and placed in boarding schools to eliminate their culture/practices/language.  This is why the Black-labeled mulattos of Louisiana were still culturally French/African/America, yet the ones of Virginia were still culturally Spanish/African/Indigenous. The author would have you believed they were all placed in a concentration camp and brainwashed. These groups, though labeled Black, remained culturally distinct. The author goes on to say:

It is not only possible, but normative for people of mixed negro and caucasian ancestry, to have predominately European cultural and racial characteristics. This is true whether they look fully caucasian, nearly caucasian, or intermediate.

I am intrigued by this “revelation” and would like to explore it further. To say that a person of mixed ancestry will have predominant Euro racial characteristics is already contradictory (and hypocritical) to the point of his blog, and also unfounded by research. How does a mixed race American determine they are *more* culturally European? The author breaks it down here. Brace yourselves for this ignorance:

… an illustration of how mixing between a White and a Black, produces a White child. Recall that “heritage” refers to the racial and cultural characteristics which we acquire from our parents and community. Racial traits consist of both ancestral lineage and appearance, so I have shown this in the diagram. The diagram also reflects that Blacks are approximately 18% European in their racial origin, and that Blacks who intermarry with Whites have slightly more European blood. The Black parent is drawn with a European cultural heritage, because “Black” culture is actually a variant of poor southern White culture. It’s worth noting, however, that Black culture is actually irrelevant, as most biracials grow up in mainstream White environments with few contacts with Blacks. At any rate, as you can see, the first generation mixed offspring are predominately European, or “White” in their total heritage. Subsequent mixing continues this trend, with rapid attenuation of the Black heritage. The negro heritage is “white-washed” in the matter of a single generation.

The number of ignorant and borderline racist assumptions floored me. I will move forward with the recognition of the arbitrary nature of “racial percentage” mining. Any geneticist worth their salt will acknowledge inherent flaws in the practice. But, if one were to believe in the idea of being “26% X, Y, or Z”, the authors points are still stupid. A few flaws:

1. The author assumes that within an interracial couple, only the Black person will have  a degree mixed heritage. We’re finding out every day that this is untrue, particularly with White Americans who have a long history of mixing with indigenous populations, and more recently Asian groups who are more likely to have children racialized as Whites. So, while only about 30% of Whites have Black ancestors (“they’re about 2% Black), a surprising number of Whites Americans still aren’t fully White in ancestry, and this varies by region. Even among Whites directly from Europe, those of Spanish, Italian, Iberian heritage are likely to have ” sub-saharan” ancestry as well. European does not necessarily mean “fully White”.

2. Takings a classic White supremacist approach to American history, the author implies that ONLY European heritage permeates American society, and that “”Black” culture is actually a variant of poor southern White culture”. Am I crazy for finding this terribly tragic? The value placed on European heritage by desperate mulattos is not new to me, but I’m surprised by this level of ignorance. Rather than seeing historical southern culture as a BLEND of African, Indigenous and European cultures, the author reveals the value placed on European-ness (code for whiteness). And like many Americans who go to Europe and return befuddled by just how disconnected they are from what is actually European, the author is in for a very rude awakening. American culture is not European. It is American. And that is a BLEND of the practices of many different people. Sad that you have to explain that to a mulatto…

3. The author states that most biracials “mainstream White environments with few contacts with Blacks”. Perhaps the ones that spend their time whining on youtube do, but research has shown that most identified biracials (many biracials that live in Black neighborhoods are identified solely as Black) actually grow up in urban centers (New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.) in DIVERSE neighborhoods. Surely most interracial couples are interested in finding communities that are likely to be open to their relationship or at least not bothered enough to make their lives isolated hells. That means they aren’t moving to Hicktown, West Virginia if they don’t have to.

3. The author’s wet dream is manifested a chart that shows that “The negro heritage is “white-washed” in the matter of a single generation.” The author makes no real consideration for the individual’s contemporary environment, chosen cultural affiliations, relationship with peers of different races-you know all that shit that counts as heritage too. You DO inherit a social environment-even if it’s different from what your parents had. Something being a part of your heritage does NOT mean you get exactly what your ancestors had/have. The mediating factors of time and space make it clear that a French girl in 1940 and a French girl in 2010 will not be the same woman. Evolution, dear mulattos. Social Evolution.

More confusion expressed here:

Not all “White” people are members of a White ethnic group. For instance, many Native Americans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Brazilians, Dominicans, French Creoles, and Mexicans, are of predominately European heritage (i.e. White). Nevertheless, they are members of racially diverse ethnic groups that are not simply European in extraction.(see below)

Race, culture and ethnicity are always confusing-they’re often used interchangeably. For example, most of the identities listed above are actually NATIONALITIES, not ethnic identities. So we know that someone can be a Mexican of full Spanish decent and therefore be White in appearance. Due to blood quantum laws (like the ODR-gasp), some Native Americans are entirely White in appearance. For most of the nationalities listed above, no matter what they called themselves in their home countries, when they come to America-there are no guarantees.

What makes the post even funnier (or sadder), is that this blog doesn’t advocate for the “rightful heritage” of all biracials. The author is only concerned for those who “look fully caucasian, nearly caucasian, or intermediate”.

Sorry Bob Marley.

In taking this position, he/she actually implicitly accepts/advocates for arbitrary racial labeling-he just wants to be on the right White side. To put it simply, the EXCLUSION of biracials who “look fully caucasian, nearly caucasian, or intermediate” from the White identity can actually be justified using this very same argument. And it appears that the author may know this:

It should be noted, that to be a member of a community requires both your permission and the acceptance of that group of people. When I refer to Anglo White Americans, or “Mixed Whites” in this sense, I mean those that claim a White or European identity. I do not mean that they are accepted as members of the White community.

I must say despite the stupidity in that post, this is one of the first I’ve read that didn’t have an entire essay dedicated to whining about how Black people put them in this tragic position. Not yet anyway…

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.

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 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 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.

December 6, 2009

The Most Tragic of Mulattos: AD Powell

https://i1.wp.com/www.multiracial.com/images/columnists/adpowell.JPG

AD Powell is what we call a mulatto militant. I believe she is currently operating under the the web handle “APGifts” as well. I enjoy reading her on-line ramblings because I can feel her dedication. I find her postings even when I’m not looking for them-on youtube ( she drops messages in my inbox), on HBCU newspaper sites, on ANY site with even the slightest reference to biracialism. It’s only a matter of time before she ends up gracing us with her presence. How am I sure AD Powell is APGifts? No one bombards the world wide web with propaganda in the particular style that AD does. It’s unique. It’s manic. It’s….tragic.

AD is a anti-Black White mulatto with a serious psychological handicap. You see, judging from her HS photo I’m guessing she is well over 40 years old, and probably has no idea that the mixed race identity isn’t nearly as contentious as it was when she was a child. Perhaps her White appearance (but her non-White social circumstance) fostered some bitterness that she has yet to resolve. Often, people who feel dis-empowered by their circumstances end up blaming others who are also socially dis-empowered for their condition. It makes it easier than having to look in the mirror, being nearly white (as she is) and saying to one’s self “If White people wanted me to be White, I WOULD be, and Black people would have no control over that”. It’s easier to blame Black people for “holding her back” rather than asking why White people haven’t “pulled her forward”.

Aside from being humorously tragic, AD may also be quite effective. When you blitz the internet with misconceptions, SOMEONE is bound to take what you’re saying as truth. And I believe this is the case. I will be addressing a few of her inaccuracies and *hypocrisies* on this blog. I have one to address now.

AD Powell (AKA APGifts) writes Darker Blacks hate Lighter Blacks or Mulattos:


It’s interesting that — in the majority of the discussions which concern the allegation of “colorism” — seldom does one ever have a chance to hear about the issue from that of the perspective of the many light-complexioned people who have been discriminated against, harrassed by and even physically assualted by people who are of a dark-complexion.

Generally — in said discussions — one is only allowed to hear about those very rare
occasions when a light-complexioned person (often as a reactionary self-defense to having suffered a lifetime of unprovoked harassment by people who are of a
dark-complexion) verbally strikes out.


What is almost never discussed is the fact of the ‘silenced’ numerous cases of
lighter-complexioned people having suffered severely at the hands and words of people who were of a darker skin-complexion.


Presenting the issue of ‘Colorims’ only from the false perspective of “dark-skin=innocent victim” / “light-skin=guilty perpetrator”
is not only both unfair and false — but it, in and of itself, is an anti-‘light
skin’ / colorist double-standard.

In actuality, we hear this anti-light skinned/biracial story ALL THE TIME. This “dark people hate me narrative” is far more common (especially) in White dominated media than the other way around. It helps to perpetuate the “jelluz darkies/full blackies myth” (check out my earlier post on that).  Rhianna, Rashida Jones, and P Diddy’s side piece Cassie have all given White media outlets their “Black rejection” stories. The majority of people who actually hear the complaints of darker Blacks are… Black people. I’m not going to get into who does it more…how would I really know? What I DO know is that it happens on BOTH sides, but one narrative receives FAR more exposure amongst non-Blacks than the other.

AD Powell (AKA APGifts) writes Lighter Blacks or Mulattos never excluded Darker Blacks:

In addition, it should also be noted that the Urban Legend, of the so-called “light skinned Black” people (i.e. people who were of Mulatto or any other groups that were of a part-Black / Mixed-Race lineage) having practiced any sort of ‘Paper Bag’; ‘Blue Vein’; or ‘Fine Toothed Comb’ tests — is simply not in any way supported by any objective, verifiable historic record.

It IS correct that many of the blue vein stories are Folkloric. They are nearly impossible to verify. BUT that doesn’t mean they are untrue. Not to get philosophical, but historical records are known for their inaccuracies as well. That’s why we have so many historians. Even something documented can be debated. What we DO know (and what AD admits) is that some lighter Blacks and mulattos did cluster and form micro-communities (within Black communities). Keep in mind that the US is diverse, and there is no single narrative for any particular group of people. What happened in Louisiana probably didn’t happen in North Carolina.

Other racist, Mulatto-Bashing Urban Legends & Myths include the “Willie Lynch Letter’ Hoax (the letter has been repeated proven to have been total fraud); the “the majority of the ‘big house’ slave positions were given to the Mulatto chattel-slaves” lie (when history shows that most of these positions — ex. mammy, cook,driver, etc.– were reserved for the slaves that were full-Black); and the lie that “most of the Mulattoes were the offspring of the plantation Owners” (when,
in reality, what the historical record actually shows is that the overwhelming vast majority of the Mulatto-lineage chattel-slaves were the result of rapes by the White plantation Overseers — and were not the offspring of the plantation Owners).

It is true that the Willie Lynch Letter is a hoax. But isn’t it funny how AD likes to use the “proximal whiteness” argument when it fits her cause? I am dying to see these historical records. We can’t even come to an official agreement on the lineage of Jefferson’s Black descendants, and he paraded his mulatto mistress around town…can we really trust that a plantation owner would shame his family and document his transgressions for posterity???? What we DO know is that mulatto slaves were often freed upon the death of the slave owner (Jefferson’s case), and had access to resources that other slaves did NOT have. Why? Make of that what you will….

The truth of the matter — as shown by the historical record (i.e. articles, diaries, books, reports, interviews, etc.) is that– when many of the full-Black people realized the extent to which most Mixed-Race former slaves practiced ‘Endogamy’* (i.e. making the choice to marry someone who is a part of one’s ‘own group’),their outrage and feelings of rejection and jealousy caused
some of them to engage in the activity of Mulatto-Bashing / anti-Mulatto Rumor-Mongering — and it was often, this very activity that led to the spreading of these urban legends and myths as being “common knowledge” about the people and the communities that were of a Mulatto-lineage.

The practice of ‘Endogamy’ (i.e. marrying “one’s own kind”) was actually very common for people of any lineage or group (including that of Mulatto-lineage) and, generally, no issues were taken with it — until the late 1960’s / early 1970’s when the appearance of the very divisive ‘Black Power Movement’ (which had usurped the very successful ‘Civil Rights Movement’) suddenly began to target and falsely condemn the practice of ‘endogamy’ by people of Mulatto-lineage (and Mulatto-lineage, only) as being “racist” and “colorist” against the people who were of a full-Black lineage.]

This is a perfect example of AD’s hypocrisy (and humor).

1. How can someone of so-called mixed race be endogamous? Your very existence is the result of exogamy (by your definition)! Historically, people were RELIGIOUSLY and CULTURALLY endogamous. What DISTINCT culture did mulattoes have by which they could be culturally exclusive? None.

2. First you say that mulattoes never had “blue vein societies” or practices by which they excluded those who weren’t like them, THEN you say they practiced endogamy. How do you forge a distinct identity without differentiating between yourself and those who are not like you? ***By creating social networks that practice color/feature based exclusion***. These blue vein societies may not have had actual addresses and club charters, but the social practice existed….YOU SAID IT YOURSELF.

Once the antebellum (chattel-slavery) era came to an end on the continental United States of America, and numerous communities became established, it then seemed that certain of the various full-Black people & families began to engage in a sharing of spurious “tales” wherein they (or someone they knew) had “heard about” a church, fraternity, sorority, social club, etc. that had both either been founded by or had a number of members who were individuals of a Mulatto-lineage and had also allegedly rejected a full-Black person solely for having had curly hair (rather than straight hair); and/or for having had brown skin (rather than tan, beige, or white skin); and/or for having had either non-visible or visibly ‘green’ arm veins (rather than ‘blue’ arm veins).  And yet, no one ever questioned the fact that the very features a person was alleged to have been ‘rejected’ for having (ex. curly hair texture; brown skin coloring; and either non-visible or ‘visibly-green’ arm veins; etc.) were the very same features that were common to ‘the average’ person who was of a Mulatto-lineage (which would have meant that the Mulattoes would have then been the biggest ‘rejectees’ of such clubs — rather than the ‘rejectors’ at such clubs — and thus, would have also proven that these “clubs” simply and more than likely did not and had never actually existed in reality.)

LOL, this doesn’t prove anything that people who pay attention to mulatto movement rhetoric don’t already know: Many mulattos are racist and colorist, even against their own. If you acknowledge that “paper bag practice” would have alienated mulattoes, wouldn’t it have proportionally alienated MORE “full blacks”?

Mulattoism isn’t about “genetic accuracy”.  It’s about racism and colorism. It’s about the APPEARANCE of racial ambiguity and difference, not your ancestry. That is why mulattoes in Brazil IN THE SAME FAMILY can have 5 different racial classifications. That is why Vanessa Williams will always be pined after and whined about by the multiracial movement, but Don Cheadle won’t. BOTH have White ancestors. One doesn’t “look” like they do.


It is often a surprise for people to learn that, in reality, there is actually No Such Thing As a “Light Skinned Black” person, at all. The term “Light Skinned Black” is really nothing more than a racist oxymoron that was created by White Supremacists in an effort to forcibly deny those Mixed-Race individuals, who are of a Multi-Generational Multiracially-Mixed (MGM-Mixed) Lineage, the right to be able to fully embrace and to also received public support in choosing to acknowledge the truth regarding their full ancestral heritage. The people who have been slapped with the false label and oxymoronic misnomer of “Light Skinned Black” person are simply Mixed-Race individuals — whose family have been continually Mixed-Race throughout their multiple generations.

Being a light skinned Black is no more of an oxymoron than being an olive-skinned or darker skinned White. Many mulatto militants like to use the same scientific racism that justifies the one drop rule, to justify their mulattoness. It is OKAY to identify as mixed race, but it is NOT OKAY to impose your racism or your personal identification on other. As AD Powell has mentioned, many people identified as mixed race even AT THE HEIGHT OF THE ONE DROP RULE. Some even identified as White, as they were close in appearance to “mediterranian Whites”, and decided to live as such.  AP’s logic is an example of the double standards that are rampant in multiracial rhetoric. It also presupposes that people who are not dark skinned don’t/can’t identify with a Black social experience.

It’s important to critically examine a lot of the revisionist multiracial rhetoric that is saturating the internet. While some of it comes from a place of honest misconception, most of it is nothing more than racism repackaged.