Tragicmulattoes's Blog

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 17, 2010

Good Hair My Ass…

I am floored by this story. Truly. Okay…not really. I’ve worked closely with educators and I’m not surprised by ANYTHING some teachers feel comfortable doing and saying to children.

A young biracial girl in the Seattle School District was recently removed from her honors class by her teacher. The teacher claimed she was allergic to the girl’s hair product. Organic Root Stimulator to be exact:

Apparently this child was the only person of color in her honors class, and among all of those children, the little mulatto was the unbearably smelly one. Coincidence?

Probably not.

To make matters even more hilarious (and ridiculous), the teacher is a dog owner! And sure, she could have a hypoallergenic dog (which would explain why she is unbothered by dog hair/dander). But between cleaning dog shit, dog baths, dog perfumes, flea baths and dog farts, it’s hard for me to believe Olive Oil moisturizer made the teacher sickly.

The little girl was ordered to sit and do her work in the regular class. The class that happens to be full of brown and black children.

The father has blogged about this incident, and doesn’t hesitate to call it what it is. He even goes on to mention that the media attention focused almost entirely on the girl’s White mother (remember what I said about White women and the multiracial movement, and their ability to demand privilege for their “not so black kids”), and he believes this was done to give the impression that the girl is White (or to not overstate her non-Whiteness) and therefore make her worthy of public sympathy. In centering her mother the ugliness that is racism won’t be overtly assumed, but would be more seriously handled. After all, Black children being streamlined out of honors classes is no new phenomenong. Teachers and administrators have been doing this for YEARS. The hair product defense is the funniest I’ve heard yet. The girl’s White mother just “couldn’t comprehend it”.

But her father knows the game. And now she does too.

The NAACP is apparently representing the family (sigh…”real negroes” to the rescue AGAIN). So while the White mother is in her confused stupor, the NAACP does all of the dirty talk for her. The White mother is the face we sympathize with, the NAACP is the organization that mobilizes (and takes the abuse for being “race-baitors”). When will Blacks stop assuming the role of whipping boy for any and every person with a tan? Let’s find out just how Black this child was before she encountered a teacher who didn’t give a damn whether she looked like Whoopi Golberg or not. Even the father believes that she was moved to the “regular black class” to be put in her place… a place they likely made sure she didn’t belong.  Where is project RACE and the millions of mulatto organizations sprouting up by the second? Why aren’t they up in arms?

June 16, 2010

Slim Thug’s Seal of Approval

I wish I knew where to begin, but I don’t. I’m not going to focus too much on the “black women are terrible and need to sacrifice their lives on the bloody  cross of Jesus for any nigga available” rhetoric because frankly, it’s a dead horse that I simply I don’t feel like beating. Besides, Professor Marc Lamont Hill did a decent job of checking “Dim Thug”. Thug actually had the nerve to respond to Dr. Hill by stating that they are different men in different industries and therefore, they meet  “different types of women”. However,  in his initial interview he praises his mulatto girlfriend for being smart and non-gold-diggerish like the Black women who don’t want to be slaves to their husbands. His mulatto broad cooks and cleans and shuts the fuck up and never asks for money. Dim Thug attributes her stellar feminine behavior to “the White in her“:

My girl is Black and White. I guess the half White in her is where she still cooks and do all the shit that I say, so we make it. She just takes care of me and I like that. She don’t be begging and I don’t gotta buy her all this crazy ass shit.

Guess what school he claims his obedient girlfriend went to? Columbia University. The same institution that happens to employ Dr. Lamont Hill. Now why on earth would she date slim thug if, by his admission, she is basically out of his class?

Pay attention:

Black people, especially Black men, fetishize mulatto women. Mulattos, especially mulatto women, know this-and will welcome it with open arms if it privileges them.

PERIOD.

People generally do NOT turn down undue advantage. People generally do NOT surrender the possibility of an easy or easier life for racial solidarity or sisterhood. This is why White feminism has failed to appeal to most women of color for over a hundred years. And the mulatto (ambiguous looking) woman is in an interesting place here, because some are in a position to manipulate their identities. So when non-biracial Black women note that they are privileged, they are called jealous and hateful. But when a Black man basically states that a mulatto woman has inherited superiority through white lineage, the world sort of ignores the implication of that statement. The fervor surrounding Slim’s statements focused on his hate for Black women, but the colorist angle-the implications about mulatto-ness- was virtually dismissed by everyone. Including Black female bloggers. I’m surprised by this.

As I stated in my earlier post about the position of Mulatto women in the Black community, it is her Whiteness that gives her value and her Blackness that makes her inferior to the White women his brother is fortunate enough to encounter. Slim thug essentially says that mulatto and white women are worthy of “positive stereotyping” (though any feminist will contests the classification of his rant as white/mulatto positive). Kola Boof (love her or hate her) speaks the ABSOLUTE TRUTH on this-with far less apprehension. We live in a patriarchal society that privileges women who meet stereotypical feminine ideals. And regardless of the anti-feminist ideology, a part of that privilege includes the RIGHT TO WANT MEN WITH STATUS WITHOUT BEING MALIGNED FOR IT. It includes THE RIGHT to leverage your “beauty”/appearance for social and economic gain. Click on the Kola link to read a much better essay on that fact.

Despite the blatant objectification of his girlfriend’s race by Slim Thug, I would bet my life the girl will “ride or die” with him. I bet she won’t take offense to what his statements imply about her or her even her naturally dim-witted and docile mother. Why?

He may claim she doesn’t ask for anything, but that doesn’t mean she isn’t actually GETTING anything.

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 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!

Next Page »