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…

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.

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.

April 8, 2010

The Multiracial Utopia Myth

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

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

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

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

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

The post goes on to say:

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

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

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

And finally the real reason behind the post:

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

Sure you do, lol:

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

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

April 3, 2010

President Obama Checks Black on Census

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

This is gonna hurt some feelings….

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

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

Have You Ever Heard a Biracial Person Say…

Filed under: Uncategorized — tragicmulattos @ 10:53 pm
Tags: , , , ,

https://i1.wp.com/www.metalmap.org/core/maps/europe.gif

“I am:
* Albanian
* Andorran
* Armenian
* Austrian
* Azerbaijanian
* Belarusian
* Belgian
* Bosnian
* Bulgarian
* Croatian
* Cyprisian
* Czech Republican
* Dutch
* Estonian
* Finnish
* French
* Georgian
* German
* Greek
* Hungarian
* Icelandic
* Irish
* Italian
* Kosovoan
* Latvian
* Liechtensteinian
* Lithuanian
* Luxembourgian
* Macedonian
* Maltan
* Moldovan
* Monacoan
* Montenegroan
* From the Netherlands
* Norway
* Polish
* Portuguese
* Romanian
* Russian
* San Marinoan
* Serbian
* Slovakian
* Slovenian
* Spanish
* Swedish
* Swiss
* Turkish
* Ukrainian
* British……

……..

……..

………..

and black.”

This always make me chuckle a little. You can often get a sense of the importance of a particular concept based on the complexity/diversity in language with which the topic is discussed. How one person with two American parents and 4 American grandparents accounts for their “racial makeup” this way-and keeps a straight face-I will never fully understand. I politely smiled at the guy, and asked him where the country black was located, what language do they speak, and how long it would take to get there.

He didn’t get it.

March 2, 2010

Does Paula Patton Know Something I Don’t???

Filed under: Snap for the kids — tragicmulattos @ 11:42 pm
Tags: , , , ,

http://dafiffloor.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/tn2_paula_patton_1.jpg

Paula Patton recently interviewed with Women’s Heatlh Magazine. Here’s what she had to say:

I find [the term biracial] offensive. It’s a way for people to separate themselves from African-Americans….a way of saying ‘I’m better than that’.

I’m black because that’s the way the world sees me. People aren’t calling Barack Obama biracial. Most people think there’s a black president.

I’m intrigued. Will comment later. Thoughts???

Next Page »