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 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!

April 11, 2010

What Some Folks Don’t Understand…

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

We’ll Tell You If You’re Black Or Not

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

Apr 9 2010, 10:00 AM ET

From John Judis, noted scholar of black identity:

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

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

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

April 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….

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.

December 6, 2009

The Most Tragic of Mulattos: AD Powell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 26, 2009

Introspective: Leona Lewis Faces Racism

This article is a bit dated but when it initially came out I didn’t really feel like reading past the headline. Now that I have time to kill, I’ll quickly go through it:

X Factor winner Leona Lewis was ordered from a shop because of her race.

She was told to leave the unnamed London store along with her Guyana-born father Joe. Bleeding Love star Leona, 24, who was buying photo frames, said: “This woman told us, ‘get out of my store right now’. I asked her ‘are you joking?’

“She said, ‘No, I want both of you to remove yourselves from my store’. I asked why – and pointing at my dad she said, ‘I don’t like the look of him. I want him to go now’.

“I said: “What do you mean? She said, ‘I know why you’re coming in here’. She was implying we were trying to steal stuff.”

The woman shouted at Leona in front of other customers, but despite being in tears the singer refused to leave. “I was so angry my dad had to drag me out of the shop. I’d never experienced anything like that. Being judged by the colour of your skin is horrible.”


I’m under the impression that this happened after she became famous. I could be wrong.

SOOOOO you and your dad are racially profiled. Check.  You are angry and distraught-brought to tears by the incident. Check. You NEVER experienced anything like that until AFTER you became globally recognizable by name and face. Check. You are a world famous singer, and you have a global platform with which you can use to publicly shun this woman and her business. Check. You decide to go public with the story, but you DO NOT name the store and you DO NOT identify the racist?????? Did they pay you off???

My conclusion: Classic example of complacency towards White racism.

If the story isn’t a complete fabrication, this might be an attempt at some urban credibility LOL. I sense an R&B album on the horizon. It’s been done before…

Because Black Women MUST Be Jealous of You

Sara Baartman

I am really fascinated by how much of a commodity beauty is in our society. This is doubly true for women, whom are (across the racial board) judged more harshly for their appearance than their male counterparts. When you consider the intersection of race and beauty, we arrive at some very sticky stuff. In case you haven’t guessed, the European aesthetic is the standard by which all women are judged.

Black women are arguably physically the most distinct from the European phenotype. Lips, nose, hair, and typical body shapes are sometimes SO distinct, they become objects of fascination/intrigue rather than simply being body parts. More questions about that? Google the tragic story of “Sartji Baartman”.

Despite what seems to be an ongoing assault on the image and self-esteem of women of predominantly African descent, studies show Black women have equal or higher self-esteem than their White counterparts. Yes, despite the overuse of racially ambiguous women portraying Black women in the media, despite being bombarded with images of White femininity, Black women have managed to emerge (at the very least) no more emotionally scarred than those for whom the beauty standards are set. Society’s response to our confidence? Media images of morbidly obese sassy Black women with bad attitudes and too much self esteem (Norbit). After all, how dare a Black woman (and how DOUBLE DARE a fat woman) deem herself worthy if Whites don’t? I guess we can’t win for losing.

Don’t get me wrong, Black women in the U.S seem to display a mixture of concession and resistance to anti-Black beauty indoctrination. Very few would approve of skin bleaching, but most do not critically question the practice of hair straightening (though this is gradually changing). It’s even harder to challenge the hair-straightening process because in the last century, the process of getting hair done has also provided an actual physical space for Black female discourse (“girl talk”). Be it the kitchen or the salon, the “hair space” can make a person feel “like a ice cube in a oven” if you aren’t a member of that “sorority”. Long wait times, questionable prices, and being unsure of what the hell you’ll look like when you leave can be really stressful. Add to that list the cheeky regulars who believe you’ve forfeited your right to “face” when you enter their space. As a girl who was never allowed to do the bimonthly salon thing, I know exactly how this feels. Plenty of Black women do too. Let’s see how Youtube’s Tiffdjones interprets this phenomenon:

Now, I’m well aware of the issues that exist between lighter and darker skinned Black women. I’m also aware of the ongoing desire for some Black women to achieve Eurocentric hair aesthetics (straight, long, etc). I DO find it interesting that her immediate interpretation  of that experience was that all of those women MUST be jealous of her. Because after all, any Black woman who isn’t absolutely honored to be in the presence of a mulatto and absolutely hell-bent on making her comfortable must be harboring some deep-seeded jealousy. While watching her video I thought back to the times I’ve been laughed at while getting my hair done, the time I was charged extra for the “extra time” because she “didn’t realize how much was there”, and the time I was flat out DENIED service by the infamous Dominicans (funny how they don’t even need names, lol) after I went natural a few years ago. I think about those experiences, sometimes hurtful, sometimes too funny and stupid to be hurtful, and I wonder since I’m not biracial, what’s my excuse?

Another thing I thought about, was the privilege Blacks often give biracials in Black (and sometimes White) contexts. This is more often communicated to biracial women by Black men, so it’s no surprise that a biracial woman in a Black female context was treated (at worse) with a little hazing, or (at best) like any other random girl. Growing up, it was pretty common knowledge that the default pretty girl would always be mixed (this would later be replaced by mixed and/or had an amazing body). However, when I went to a nearly entirely White high school I found that this simply didn’t happen in White environments. In fact, for a particular biracial girl, the combination of red hair, a slightly tighter than average curl pattern, and an affinity for Bob Marley shirts made me realize that it could be downright hard. I finally decided to ask a male student what was so funny about her. His reply was, “you don’t see Bozo’s sister?”

In reflecting on the many times I’ve observed biracials in Black and White contexts, I come to the same conclusions; overly regarded in one environment, nearly invisible in another. This is mainly applicable to the heterosexual contexts I’ve observed. This leads me to another hypothetical conclusion about Tiffdjones’ video:

If the women making her uncomfortable were White, she wouldn’t have the gall or the audacity to assume they were jealous of her. I would put my life on it. I’ve witnessed it before, Biracial women in White female groups often resign themselves to “supporting actress” roles, even if they are attractive enough to be the center of attention. They don’t conceptualize themselves as threats to the social value of White women (certainly not in the eyes of White men), so any tension that arises between a biracial woman and a White woman is likely interpreted as an individual act of meanness rather than some racially loaded act of biracial envy. The blogger has mentioned that her mother (who is Black) discouraged her from trusting Black women with he hair, and this may very well be an example of how the minority parents of biracial identified children often impart their racial insecurities on their children, and these insecurities become a part of their racial identity (as with all racial identities). I will discuss this in more detail later. It pokes a critical whole in the “best of both worlds” argument, or the argument that Biracialism is a fundamental representation of racial progressiveness. Racial progress encourages you to stereotype the very group to which your mother belongs…and your mother encourages this as well???

I guess what I’m asking is…is it really their inferiority complex or your superiority complex??? I think someone who has been raised to be distrustful/wary of a certain group will likely interpret anything they do with that predisposed expectation.

November 25, 2009

Hello world! FAQs

Filed under: Uncategorized — tragicmulattos @ 7:12 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Welcome to TragicMulattos. As noted in the “About Me” section, this blog is a critique of the modern multiracial movement. I say modern because, contrary to popular belief, mulattos have historically made attempts to organize around a multiracial identity. The MYTH that the One Drop Rule is THE defining aspect of the history of Black/White intermarriage in America is untrue. In fact, the One Drop Rule was a relatively minor aspect of our racial history, and AT NO TIME was it applied in every state, nor in every community. It is important to challenge the idea that ANY time a person of mixed ancestry identifies themselves by one race (be it White or Black), it MUST be due to the One Drop Rule.

The modern multiracial movement (which I will call MMM) has emerged in the last 30 years. Before the late 1970’s the majority of Black/White intermarriages that took place were between Black women and White men. With integration and the dismantling of segregation law, there was a huge shift in the gender makeup of Black White IR relationships, in which White women were now emerging as the mothers of non-White children. Although gains were main during the post civil rights era, Blacks were still systemically and institutionally discriminated against-from employment to education. Yes, this institutionalized racism included the mistreatment of Black children in desegregated schools. Outraged by society’s treatment of their children (not all non-white children), White women sought to secure a social and political space for their children in which they knew their children could not be White, but would not have to be Black. It is natural for someone to want to protect their children, but where does this take our social understanding of race? Dr. David Harris from the University of Michigan’s department of Sociology says that the multiracial movement is:

driven by outraged white women, and I think that’s good. Society is more responsive to the movement because so many of the women driving it are white.”

Basically, the MMM started as 1. An exercise in White female privilege and 2. The attempt to transfer this privilege to their disenfranchised children. In a way it seeks to strengthen our outdated views about race because it demands that our antiquated racial identities be transferred to our children, rather than demanding that our social structures not recognize race at all.

This was NEVER about “accuracy” and  “progress”. If you wanted “accuracy”, shouldn’t you be fighting for all people to be labeled human, which is our ONLY true scientific race? If it is about progress, isn’t it more progressive to move away from racial labels instead of creating new ones?

jazmine_dubois_boondocks.jpg image by NuGenius

Some FAQs you may want to know about this blog

1. Do you oppose the biracial or multiracial identity?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. I oppose much of the rhetoric surrounding the MMM, and that’s what this blog is about. If we do not change and challenge our outdated understanding of race, and APPLY that knowledge, we will simply repeat the past using new jargon. Don’t tell me you’re biracial because of genetics or  biology, then say you oppose the One Drop Rule. Both use pseudo-science to justify your existence. BOTH ARE WRONG. However, I see biracialism as a lived social experience. An experience that NOT ALL PEOPLE with one Black parent and one White parent will have.

2. Why create a blog about this?

I created this blog because many blogs and websites are antagonistic towards any sort of criticism or opposition. I found it best to just create my own space and allow those who seek to find.

3. Why is your blog named TragicMulattos?

It brought you here, didn’t it? LOL. But seriously, the tragic mulatto archetype is prevalent in US literature. One of the main oppositions to the tragic mulatto archetype is that society (particularly Whites) are only encouraged to shun the racial status quo when the face of racial mistreatment is White or nearly White.

4. What are some of the issues you have with the MMM?

*No strong criticisms of the structure of race in America aside from their desire for a MR label

*The MMM often positions Whites as innocent/ignorant racist and Blacks as antagonistic/malicious “crabs in the barrel” racist.

*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’m sure there are more that I will write as time goes on.

If you have any pertinent questions, feel free to drop them in the comment section.