Full Version: The genes that build America
Here's a link to a really interesting article in yesterday's Observer newspaper.
(Here, I'm using the British convention that if the publishing location isn't mentioned on the masthead, it doesn't get cited. For reference, though, I'm talking about the "London Observer". That's London, England
)
Anyway, here are some choice nuggets:
The article goes on to say that almost all black Americans have at least some white ancestry. It also touches on concerns that the commercialisation of genetics and genealogy in response to rising demand often over-simplifies both the science and the statistics to give people more dramatic results.
And it discusses how racial mixing has different implications for different groups. For example, many black people have white ancestry they did't know they had (just as many whites have black ancestry). But in many of those cases, black people have those white ancestors because of white abuses during the slavery era e.g. enslaved women were raped by white men and went on to bear children.
*aside* While reading this part of the article, it struck me that not ALL such white heritage among black people was a product of violence or oppression, and that some of those mixed-race children must have been produced from loving (if illicit, at least pre-1967) relationships.
But racism among both black & white people would have judged such children as "black" or "white" depending on their looks, so it's not hard to see why, historically, such children would have been labelled one way or the other, and their identity and that of subsequent generations might have "sided" one way or another.
It was interesting enough to post in itself, but I also heard a passing reference on the satirical radio programme The Now Show to a Campaign for Decency on the Internet (or some such) which originated on a fundamentalist Christian website that condemned websites which promoted "Bestiality and racial mixing" (as if they are on the same spectrum). (If you've a spare half hour, listen, and find out what makes me laugh. My political views are practically identical to Marcus Brigstocke's.)
This made me think that, to a degree, British attitudes to race are different from America - there were no laws against "miscegenation" on the statue books here, probably because enslaved Africans were never here in any numbers; there was no money in it. There have been small black populations in British port cities for many centuries - Cardiff claims one of the oldest - but they were free men and women here to make a living, not slaves, and in any case tey were tiny minorities with little effect on the nation as a whole.
British racism was mostly directed abroad, where heroes were made of white men with rifles and cannon who won battles against black or brown men with spears and arrows to take their land and resources. Domestically it was mainly directed towards the Jews and the Irish (and, before that, the Welsh, Scots, Cornish, Angles, Saxons, Vikings and Danes) until the post-war waves of immigration of black Afro-Caribbeans, Ugandan Hindus and Indo-Pakistani Muslims and Sikhs gave more obvious targets (that's not to say Jews don't still get targeted by racism from native white Britons, before anyone points it out).
So I wanted to explore American attitudes to race, and how much they are rooted in the idea of race versus the reality of skin colour. Nobody bats an eyelid when Halle Berry (black American father, white British mother) is described as "black", even though she isn't black, but mixed race. But nobody (including in the UK) would describe her as "white", because she isn't white. How come it's culturally acceptable, or even mandated, to describe her as one thing she isn't, but it's taboo to describe her as another thing she isn't? And how come - in America especially - it's quite rare to hear her (and others like her e.g. Barrack Obama) described as what she is; mixed race?
What do you know about your heritage? Have you traced your ancestry in some way, and what surprises did it throw up?
What are the implications, both politically and culturally, for an America where "black" and "white" are not distinct and uncrossable boundaries, but fluid?
Why are mixed race people routinely assigned to the group they most resemble, rather than to a group of their own with a claim on both heritages, or rather than just choosing the group they feel comfortable with?
How can attitudes to race that were shaped by centuries of slavery, and which, while they have changed somewhat, still survive more than a century after abolition, change (or be changed) to better reflect the reality of mixed races and cross-fertilised cultures that is modern-day America?
(Here, I'm using the British convention that if the publishing location isn't mentioned on the masthead, it doesn't get cited. For reference, though, I'm talking about the "London Observer". That's London, England
)Anyway, here are some choice nuggets:
QUOTE
A few weeks previously Reverend Sharpton, one of America's most outspoken black civil rights leaders, had not known of the cemetery's existence. But researchers had explored his genealogy and broken the news to him. Sharpton's story had an astonishing twist: the genealogists discovered that his ancestors had once been owned by the ancestors of Strom Thurmond, the Senator and former segregationist who once ran for president on a racist platform. The phrase 'ironic coincidence' did not begin to cover it.
<snip>
of Americans of every creed and colour are exploring their family histories in a genealogy boom that is redefining who they are and what it means to be American. The internet has allowed people to find obscure information at the click of a mouse that was previously locked away on dusty library shelves. They are also using modern DNA techniques to research their racial history, creating a multi-million dollar industry of consumer genetics. Like Sharpton, many are making shocking discoveries. They are finding slaves and slave-owners. Far from being a nation of different races, many are finding they have mixed pasts. Blacks are discovering they have white blood, whites are finding black relatives. Native Americans are growing in numbers, not because of a high birth rate, but because many Americans are discovering unknown native ancestors written in their DNA.
<snip>
Last year, Professor Peter Fine at Florida Atlantic University had an idea for an art class. He would gather a group of students to produce work around their idea of their racial identity. But as part of the class he asked them to take a DNA test that would break down their racial background. His bet was that most of the class - of whom the majority saw themselves as whites of European descent - had no real idea who they were.
He was right. Of 13 students, only one turned out to be completely European. The rest displayed a mixture of European, Native American, African and Asian genes. The one black student turned out to be 21 per cent white. Fine himself - who admits to looking like a corn-fed stereotype of a white Midwesterner - discovered he was a quarter Native American. 'I honestly think these tests could have a large effect on American consciousness of who we are. If Americans recognise themselves as a mixed group of people, that could really change things,' he said.
<snip>
of Americans of every creed and colour are exploring their family histories in a genealogy boom that is redefining who they are and what it means to be American. The internet has allowed people to find obscure information at the click of a mouse that was previously locked away on dusty library shelves. They are also using modern DNA techniques to research their racial history, creating a multi-million dollar industry of consumer genetics. Like Sharpton, many are making shocking discoveries. They are finding slaves and slave-owners. Far from being a nation of different races, many are finding they have mixed pasts. Blacks are discovering they have white blood, whites are finding black relatives. Native Americans are growing in numbers, not because of a high birth rate, but because many Americans are discovering unknown native ancestors written in their DNA.
<snip>
Last year, Professor Peter Fine at Florida Atlantic University had an idea for an art class. He would gather a group of students to produce work around their idea of their racial identity. But as part of the class he asked them to take a DNA test that would break down their racial background. His bet was that most of the class - of whom the majority saw themselves as whites of European descent - had no real idea who they were.
He was right. Of 13 students, only one turned out to be completely European. The rest displayed a mixture of European, Native American, African and Asian genes. The one black student turned out to be 21 per cent white. Fine himself - who admits to looking like a corn-fed stereotype of a white Midwesterner - discovered he was a quarter Native American. 'I honestly think these tests could have a large effect on American consciousness of who we are. If Americans recognise themselves as a mixed group of people, that could really change things,' he said.
The article goes on to say that almost all black Americans have at least some white ancestry. It also touches on concerns that the commercialisation of genetics and genealogy in response to rising demand often over-simplifies both the science and the statistics to give people more dramatic results.
And it discusses how racial mixing has different implications for different groups. For example, many black people have white ancestry they did't know they had (just as many whites have black ancestry). But in many of those cases, black people have those white ancestors because of white abuses during the slavery era e.g. enslaved women were raped by white men and went on to bear children.
*aside* While reading this part of the article, it struck me that not ALL such white heritage among black people was a product of violence or oppression, and that some of those mixed-race children must have been produced from loving (if illicit, at least pre-1967) relationships.
But racism among both black & white people would have judged such children as "black" or "white" depending on their looks, so it's not hard to see why, historically, such children would have been labelled one way or the other, and their identity and that of subsequent generations might have "sided" one way or another.
It was interesting enough to post in itself, but I also heard a passing reference on the satirical radio programme The Now Show to a Campaign for Decency on the Internet (or some such) which originated on a fundamentalist Christian website that condemned websites which promoted "Bestiality and racial mixing" (as if they are on the same spectrum). (If you've a spare half hour, listen, and find out what makes me laugh. My political views are practically identical to Marcus Brigstocke's.)
This made me think that, to a degree, British attitudes to race are different from America - there were no laws against "miscegenation" on the statue books here, probably because enslaved Africans were never here in any numbers; there was no money in it. There have been small black populations in British port cities for many centuries - Cardiff claims one of the oldest - but they were free men and women here to make a living, not slaves, and in any case tey were tiny minorities with little effect on the nation as a whole.
British racism was mostly directed abroad, where heroes were made of white men with rifles and cannon who won battles against black or brown men with spears and arrows to take their land and resources. Domestically it was mainly directed towards the Jews and the Irish (and, before that, the Welsh, Scots, Cornish, Angles, Saxons, Vikings and Danes) until the post-war waves of immigration of black Afro-Caribbeans, Ugandan Hindus and Indo-Pakistani Muslims and Sikhs gave more obvious targets (that's not to say Jews don't still get targeted by racism from native white Britons, before anyone points it out).
So I wanted to explore American attitudes to race, and how much they are rooted in the idea of race versus the reality of skin colour. Nobody bats an eyelid when Halle Berry (black American father, white British mother) is described as "black", even though she isn't black, but mixed race. But nobody (including in the UK) would describe her as "white", because she isn't white. How come it's culturally acceptable, or even mandated, to describe her as one thing she isn't, but it's taboo to describe her as another thing she isn't? And how come - in America especially - it's quite rare to hear her (and others like her e.g. Barrack Obama) described as what she is; mixed race?
What do you know about your heritage? Have you traced your ancestry in some way, and what surprises did it throw up?
What are the implications, both politically and culturally, for an America where "black" and "white" are not distinct and uncrossable boundaries, but fluid?
Why are mixed race people routinely assigned to the group they most resemble, rather than to a group of their own with a claim on both heritages, or rather than just choosing the group they feel comfortable with?
How can attitudes to race that were shaped by centuries of slavery, and which, while they have changed somewhat, still survive more than a century after abolition, change (or be changed) to better reflect the reality of mixed races and cross-fertilised cultures that is modern-day America?
What do you know about your heritage? Have you traced your ancestry in some way, and what surprises did it throw up?
Most African-Americans suspect some partial European heritage, but slavery made it a lot more difficult to trace our bloodlines. I know a quite a few white families that can trace their heritage to "uncle such and such" who came over on a ship in 1890 and so on.
Our family occasionally heres recollections about the last generation who were enslaved, but that's as far back as it goes.
That's a very long... beats me...
What are the implications, both politically and culturally, for an America where "black" and "white" are not distinct and uncrossable boundaries, but fluid?
Why are mixed race people routinely assigned to the group they most resemble, rather than to a group of their own with a claim on both heritages, or rather than just choosing the group they feel comfortable with?
I suspect the reticence on both sides to acknowledge fluidity is a symptom of the underlying causes of tension.
James Brown ask us to "Say it Loud!" because it used to be a mark of shame, many blacks are wary of any moves to dilute a person's black heritage because they suspect it signals shame.
I don't find many whites who are eager to trail out their African backgrounds either....
Shame is the real enemy. It would be wonderful if everyone could simply take pride in their mixed heritage.
How can attitudes to race that were shaped by centuries of slavery, and which, while they have changed somewhat, still survive more than a century after abolition, change (or be changed) to better reflect the reality of mixed races and cross-fertilised cultures that is modern-day America?
We've have about forty years of true peace between said warring factions after hundreds of years of pain.
distance without corresponding ignorance would help a lot. Many Americans still don't understand how we got to where we are and that is fatal to informed, profitable dialog.
Most African-Americans suspect some partial European heritage, but slavery made it a lot more difficult to trace our bloodlines. I know a quite a few white families that can trace their heritage to "uncle such and such" who came over on a ship in 1890 and so on.
Our family occasionally heres recollections about the last generation who were enslaved, but that's as far back as it goes.
That's a very long... beats me...
What are the implications, both politically and culturally, for an America where "black" and "white" are not distinct and uncrossable boundaries, but fluid?
Why are mixed race people routinely assigned to the group they most resemble, rather than to a group of their own with a claim on both heritages, or rather than just choosing the group they feel comfortable with?
I suspect the reticence on both sides to acknowledge fluidity is a symptom of the underlying causes of tension.
James Brown ask us to "Say it Loud!" because it used to be a mark of shame, many blacks are wary of any moves to dilute a person's black heritage because they suspect it signals shame.
I don't find many whites who are eager to trail out their African backgrounds either....
Shame is the real enemy. It would be wonderful if everyone could simply take pride in their mixed heritage.
How can attitudes to race that were shaped by centuries of slavery, and which, while they have changed somewhat, still survive more than a century after abolition, change (or be changed) to better reflect the reality of mixed races and cross-fertilised cultures that is modern-day America?
We've have about forty years of true peace between said warring factions after hundreds of years of pain.
distance without corresponding ignorance would help a lot. Many Americans still don't understand how we got to where we are and that is fatal to informed, profitable dialog.
What do you know about your heritage? Have you traced your ancestry in some way, and what surprises did it throw up?
I was surprised that my Scottish heritage and last name did not make me an immediate relative of the just retired Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
I was less surprised that I could not find proof of ancestry to famous historical figures that my grandparents claimed we are connected to.
What are the implications, both politically and culturally, for an America where "black" and "white" are not distinct and uncrossable boundaries, but fluid?
These boundaries are fluid. I have noticed a tremendous change in the United States in my lifetime as to how common mixed marriages and offspring have become. This fluidity will simply be the greater realization of the concept of the American melting pot or salad bar where we adhere to a set of civic nationalistic ideals but we also celebrate a whole variety of cultural traditions and heritages.
Why are mixed race people routinely assigned to the group they most resemble, rather than to a group of their own with a claim on both heritages, or rather than just choosing the group they feel comfortable with?
This is a remnant of our social racism. I believe it is also a remnant of the British system as opposed to the Spanish colonial racial caste system. Because in Britain and British colonies a dichotomy instead of gradations was recognized, you were either in the "in" group or out. It was much more taboo to enter into relationships that created mestizo offspring and the actually mixed race children were denied from the "higher" social group and automatically placed in the "lower" social group. The practice was possible because the mother was almost always from the "lower" social group.
Today we have remnant racism that continues to make someone either black or white or Asian or Jewish etc.
How can attitudes to race that were shaped by centuries of slavery, and which, while they have changed somewhat, still survive more than a century after abolition, change (or be changed) to better reflect the reality of mixed races and cross-fertilised cultures that is modern-day America?
I wish I knew. I deal with this on a regular basis. See in my family the order of arrival came in this way. 1st mother, 2nd daughter #1, 3rd father, 4th son #1, 5th daughter #2. The biological father of daughter #1 is African American. It takes routine persuasion and conversation with my oldest daughter to convince her that she is not racially separate from us. She is still gathering the concept, but schoolmates, friends, bus passengers, etc. assume she is adopted and not from her white mother's womb. I have been her only active father in her life and her biological father has never seen her (she's eight years old) But she is confused by her distinct skin color and the reaction of those around her to it.
I also see gradations of the type of reaction to people of mixed racial backgrounds. In large cities there are less glances. Different regions seem to have different types of interest. Tennessee has many more black and white biracial children then Alabama and the atmosphere here, while difficult to quantify or document, is much better on the subject then Alabama. There is still seems to be a much greater burden and it seems to be perceived as a violation of the old rules by more people.
I watch for the reaction of people to celebrities of multiracial backgrounds and how they are described. The stories of James Blake and Tiger Woods, Barak Obama and Halle Berry are very interesting to me. In general, these people are often celebrated as pioneers for African Americans, but they are less often described as being part of multiple worlds.
I look forward to a time when multiracial backgrounds are as common as the intermixture of the different European clans has recently become.
I was surprised that my Scottish heritage and last name did not make me an immediate relative of the just retired Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
I was less surprised that I could not find proof of ancestry to famous historical figures that my grandparents claimed we are connected to.
What are the implications, both politically and culturally, for an America where "black" and "white" are not distinct and uncrossable boundaries, but fluid?
These boundaries are fluid. I have noticed a tremendous change in the United States in my lifetime as to how common mixed marriages and offspring have become. This fluidity will simply be the greater realization of the concept of the American melting pot or salad bar where we adhere to a set of civic nationalistic ideals but we also celebrate a whole variety of cultural traditions and heritages.
Why are mixed race people routinely assigned to the group they most resemble, rather than to a group of their own with a claim on both heritages, or rather than just choosing the group they feel comfortable with?
This is a remnant of our social racism. I believe it is also a remnant of the British system as opposed to the Spanish colonial racial caste system. Because in Britain and British colonies a dichotomy instead of gradations was recognized, you were either in the "in" group or out. It was much more taboo to enter into relationships that created mestizo offspring and the actually mixed race children were denied from the "higher" social group and automatically placed in the "lower" social group. The practice was possible because the mother was almost always from the "lower" social group.
Today we have remnant racism that continues to make someone either black or white or Asian or Jewish etc.
How can attitudes to race that were shaped by centuries of slavery, and which, while they have changed somewhat, still survive more than a century after abolition, change (or be changed) to better reflect the reality of mixed races and cross-fertilised cultures that is modern-day America?
I wish I knew. I deal with this on a regular basis. See in my family the order of arrival came in this way. 1st mother, 2nd daughter #1, 3rd father, 4th son #1, 5th daughter #2. The biological father of daughter #1 is African American. It takes routine persuasion and conversation with my oldest daughter to convince her that she is not racially separate from us. She is still gathering the concept, but schoolmates, friends, bus passengers, etc. assume she is adopted and not from her white mother's womb. I have been her only active father in her life and her biological father has never seen her (she's eight years old) But she is confused by her distinct skin color and the reaction of those around her to it.
I also see gradations of the type of reaction to people of mixed racial backgrounds. In large cities there are less glances. Different regions seem to have different types of interest. Tennessee has many more black and white biracial children then Alabama and the atmosphere here, while difficult to quantify or document, is much better on the subject then Alabama. There is still seems to be a much greater burden and it seems to be perceived as a violation of the old rules by more people.
I watch for the reaction of people to celebrities of multiracial backgrounds and how they are described. The stories of James Blake and Tiger Woods, Barak Obama and Halle Berry are very interesting to me. In general, these people are often celebrated as pioneers for African Americans, but they are less often described as being part of multiple worlds.
I look forward to a time when multiracial backgrounds are as common as the intermixture of the different European clans has recently become.
What do you know about your heritage? Have you traced your ancestry in some way, and what surprises did it throw up?
I'm pretty interested in my family history/genealogy and have been doing my fair share of research over the past five or so years. I've found ship manifests from Ellis Island with information about at least four family members (as far as we know, no one in my genetic line lived in the U.S. prior to 1900 - there are a few unknowns on my paternal grandfather's side, though). I know that my family comes from Ireland, Scotland, Hungary, and Germany (and probably lots of other places we don't know about). My mother says we have lots of "gypsy" blood. I know that my father's family originated in Germany but at some point fled to Lithuania and changed their last name to blend in, but don't have any knowledge of his family pre-America.
I did know that my great-grandfather (not blood related, he was my great-grandmother's third husband) married a woman who was half black and they had a child together. Their child, my great-uncle (Harold) eventually married and because of the worries about what having a "mixed" child might bring about in their time, they intended not to have children. They ended up getting pregnant and having a son (who I believe did not go on to have children of his own). My family is fairly open-minded when it comes to race/cultural issues and always have been (my mother's side, anyway). My great-grandmother told us stories about having a black best friend when she was a little girl and the trouble they used to get in for playing together. My mother's husband is Mexican-American, my husband is Black, etc.
My husband's paternal grandmother has done extensive research (she's a member of all sorts of genealogy clubs and such in Cleveland) on their family line and she has been able to trace their roots back to Africa, in The Ivory Coast. I don't know the details here, but I am hoping to collect this information from her so that I can use it in my family tree. On my husband's mother's side, they have been in the same part of Georgia for centuries. They know of many white relatives in their ancestry and also know of many Native American ancestors as well. My husband's maternal grandmother is, I believe, one quarter Cherokee.
What are the implications, both politically and culturally, for an America where "black" and "white" are not distinct and uncrossable boundaries, but fluid?
I think things are much more "fluid" now than they were just 20 years ago. I have many friends with mixed race heritage or with children of mixed heritage and they use "multicultural" as a label. I don't know about what might come in the future in terms of political/cultural implications of more fluid racial boundaries, but I definitely think it's a good thing.
Why are mixed race people routinely assigned to the group they most resemble, rather than to a group of their own with a claim on both heritages, or rather than just choosing the group they feel comfortable with?
I think this is more about identifying with the minority ethnic groups because of a willingness to "claim" your heritage and not shun it than it is about being assigned to a group based upon looks. I consider my daughter black, though a stranger would almost never guess that her daddy is black unless he was standing right next to her. I think the identification issue is still probably more difficult for people of mixed heritage who do not look black, Hispanic, Asian, etc. because people will always question why they choose to identify with that ethnicity and they probably have a lot of internal struggle as a result. I had a fairly close friend in high school whose father was black and mother was white. He had straight red hair and freckles and no one in a million years would guess that he was half black. He wore a Grambling University t-shirt to school one day and people looked at him like he had two heads. My daughter will probably fare about the same, though multiculturalism is much more appreciated and celebrated (and expected) today than it was even just the 12 years ago that I was in high school.
How can attitudes to race that were shaped by centuries of slavery, and which, while they have changed somewhat, still survive more than a century after abolition, change (or be changed) to better reflect the reality of mixed races and cross-fertilised cultures that is modern-day America?
I think in major metropolitan areas, we are seeing a much greater appreciation for multiculturalism and mixed race/culture relationships/families. I think many people are opting to drop racial identifiers in favor of identifying themselves as multicultural/multiracial. Of course, being a military family, we live in a very multicultural environment no matter where we are because so many military folks marry or have children with someone from a different ethnic background. Multicultural families are nothing strange to me. I grew up around families of all sorts of mixed backgrounds (living so close to NYC as a youg child may have had some effect on this) and thought it was the norm until I was older.
I think the trend is leaning toward more acceptance of multicultural families, however old habits are hard to break and I think there are still many prejudices surrounding multicultural families. My husband and I have often heard comments like "I never would have guessed YOU'D have a white wife" and vice versa. They usually go on to say that we don't fit the stereotypical black male/white female couple (I suppose these stereotypes come from Ricki Lake/Jerry Springer exposure). I've never been physically attracted to white men (my first crush in Kindergarten was a Black boy named Troy), though I'd never say I wouldn't date a white man. It just so happened that I didn't (I've only had three boyfriends since I met my husband when I was 16). On the other hand, my husband had never date a "white girl" before me (he had many non-black friends, though). I've always been wary of people who'd assume certain things about me because I had a non-white boyfriend (now husband), but in the end I decided that I really don't care. We've never had any problems in our twelve year relationship, though. Little strange comments/questions here and there, yes. But even in our travels throughout the South (VERY segregated parts of Georgia where my husband's family lives), we've been generally accepted. I think a lot of that acceptance is because it's obvious that our relationship is genuine, but I don't really know for sure.
Hopefully my daughter will have no troubles in this department when she is of dating/marrying age (perish the thought
).
I'm pretty interested in my family history/genealogy and have been doing my fair share of research over the past five or so years. I've found ship manifests from Ellis Island with information about at least four family members (as far as we know, no one in my genetic line lived in the U.S. prior to 1900 - there are a few unknowns on my paternal grandfather's side, though). I know that my family comes from Ireland, Scotland, Hungary, and Germany (and probably lots of other places we don't know about). My mother says we have lots of "gypsy" blood. I know that my father's family originated in Germany but at some point fled to Lithuania and changed their last name to blend in, but don't have any knowledge of his family pre-America.
I did know that my great-grandfather (not blood related, he was my great-grandmother's third husband) married a woman who was half black and they had a child together. Their child, my great-uncle (Harold) eventually married and because of the worries about what having a "mixed" child might bring about in their time, they intended not to have children. They ended up getting pregnant and having a son (who I believe did not go on to have children of his own). My family is fairly open-minded when it comes to race/cultural issues and always have been (my mother's side, anyway). My great-grandmother told us stories about having a black best friend when she was a little girl and the trouble they used to get in for playing together. My mother's husband is Mexican-American, my husband is Black, etc.
My husband's paternal grandmother has done extensive research (she's a member of all sorts of genealogy clubs and such in Cleveland) on their family line and she has been able to trace their roots back to Africa, in The Ivory Coast. I don't know the details here, but I am hoping to collect this information from her so that I can use it in my family tree. On my husband's mother's side, they have been in the same part of Georgia for centuries. They know of many white relatives in their ancestry and also know of many Native American ancestors as well. My husband's maternal grandmother is, I believe, one quarter Cherokee.
What are the implications, both politically and culturally, for an America where "black" and "white" are not distinct and uncrossable boundaries, but fluid?
I think things are much more "fluid" now than they were just 20 years ago. I have many friends with mixed race heritage or with children of mixed heritage and they use "multicultural" as a label. I don't know about what might come in the future in terms of political/cultural implications of more fluid racial boundaries, but I definitely think it's a good thing.
Why are mixed race people routinely assigned to the group they most resemble, rather than to a group of their own with a claim on both heritages, or rather than just choosing the group they feel comfortable with?
I think this is more about identifying with the minority ethnic groups because of a willingness to "claim" your heritage and not shun it than it is about being assigned to a group based upon looks. I consider my daughter black, though a stranger would almost never guess that her daddy is black unless he was standing right next to her. I think the identification issue is still probably more difficult for people of mixed heritage who do not look black, Hispanic, Asian, etc. because people will always question why they choose to identify with that ethnicity and they probably have a lot of internal struggle as a result. I had a fairly close friend in high school whose father was black and mother was white. He had straight red hair and freckles and no one in a million years would guess that he was half black. He wore a Grambling University t-shirt to school one day and people looked at him like he had two heads. My daughter will probably fare about the same, though multiculturalism is much more appreciated and celebrated (and expected) today than it was even just the 12 years ago that I was in high school.
How can attitudes to race that were shaped by centuries of slavery, and which, while they have changed somewhat, still survive more than a century after abolition, change (or be changed) to better reflect the reality of mixed races and cross-fertilised cultures that is modern-day America?
I think in major metropolitan areas, we are seeing a much greater appreciation for multiculturalism and mixed race/culture relationships/families. I think many people are opting to drop racial identifiers in favor of identifying themselves as multicultural/multiracial. Of course, being a military family, we live in a very multicultural environment no matter where we are because so many military folks marry or have children with someone from a different ethnic background. Multicultural families are nothing strange to me. I grew up around families of all sorts of mixed backgrounds (living so close to NYC as a youg child may have had some effect on this) and thought it was the norm until I was older.
I think the trend is leaning toward more acceptance of multicultural families, however old habits are hard to break and I think there are still many prejudices surrounding multicultural families. My husband and I have often heard comments like "I never would have guessed YOU'D have a white wife" and vice versa. They usually go on to say that we don't fit the stereotypical black male/white female couple (I suppose these stereotypes come from Ricki Lake/Jerry Springer exposure). I've never been physically attracted to white men (my first crush in Kindergarten was a Black boy named Troy), though I'd never say I wouldn't date a white man. It just so happened that I didn't (I've only had three boyfriends since I met my husband when I was 16). On the other hand, my husband had never date a "white girl" before me (he had many non-black friends, though). I've always been wary of people who'd assume certain things about me because I had a non-white boyfriend (now husband), but in the end I decided that I really don't care. We've never had any problems in our twelve year relationship, though. Little strange comments/questions here and there, yes. But even in our travels throughout the South (VERY segregated parts of Georgia where my husband's family lives), we've been generally accepted. I think a lot of that acceptance is because it's obvious that our relationship is genuine, but I don't really know for sure.
Hopefully my daughter will have no troubles in this department when she is of dating/marrying age (perish the thought
).
What do you know about your heritage? Have you traced your ancestry in some way, and what surprises did it throw up?
Ugh, I am a total blueblood. My mom never ceases to tell me all about it. I guess there is pride in heritage, I guess I am most proud to be related to John Quincy Adams, and his father
Outside of that- my lineage and a buck will get you a stale cup of coffee at the local greasy spoon.
My aunt wrote some book about it and all that- so what does all this mean if you have all this history and no money? Not a damn thing- I am here to tell you. But I guess I could get an invite to see the Queen of England or Prince Charles if I present it in the right light
So anyway- no suprises- most of my family has been researched to death, most of it before I was born, and there are illustrations and 8x10 glossies to prove it, and even now, DNA genetic testing to all the family members. - I was really, really hoping for some "not of our line" genes in there somewhere, just to spice things up- but it never happened.
My Grandma's generation was the last to actually be in arranged marriages, though my parents both didn't directly have thier marriage arranged, they did marry off the 'approved" list.
My generation is the first to break that cycle- my cousin was disowned by my uncle for marrying a hispanic man. She broke the cycle completely. He reconciled with her and jettisoned his racist beliefs before dying of cancer, so the family rift was forever healed, and now, I am engaged to a nice hispanic girl myself - I have one cousin that married a Phillipina girl, and another that married a black girl.
so, personally, I would have liked to have a little better variety in the ol' bloodline than boring old farts
What are the implications, both politically and culturally, for an America where "black" and "white" are not distinct and uncrossable boundaries, but fluid?
I think it is a good thing, soon, perhaps my kids generation, won't really understand racism- we are simply too blended to make a distiinction. I knew racism as a kid- from the white perspective- but my dauther will never know it like I did. So it may be one of those things that makes my daughter wonder if the generation before me was truly crazy.
I think my daughter' s generation will feel the same way about gays like "what was the big deal anyway?" like I feel about rock and roll and blue jeans today- though, at one point in our history- both could get ya beat!
Why are mixed race people routinely assigned to the group they most resemble, rather than to a group of their own with a claim on both heritages, or rather than just choosing the group they feel comfortable with?
Humans categorize and comparmentalize EVERYTIHNG. It is our nature- thats the meat group, that is the bread group, that is the dairy group, and then make sub-sets out of each one of them. It is natural for our minds to categorize everything. I believe Piaget called them "schemas" - our need to box everything up into a single understanding universal "truth".
So, when we have a cabbage and lettuce hybird vegetable- we usually try to pick one of those two boxes rather than create a whole new category. You know, "thinking outside the box"
How can attitudes to race that were shaped by centuries of slavery, and which, while they have changed somewhat, still survive more than a century after abolition, change (or be changed) to better reflect the reality of mixed races and cross-fertilised cultures that is modern-day America?
Because slavery, though it ended at the civil war- didn't mean equal rights, it just meant white poeple couldn't own black poeple as property.
Blacks as second class citizens and inferior "mud poeple" really didn't get turned around in the America psyche until the mid 70s- that is about the time I started to notice more acceptance between whites and blacks, and laws like ending "steerage' to make nieghborhoods stay white or black.
It is only in my time that when a black family moved into the nieghborhood, there wasn't 50 "for sale' signs popping up the next day.
Slavery as an institution may have ended in the 1860s, but the cultural bias didn't really start to lose out until the 1970s.
It will probably be a generation, my daughter's generation or my great grandkids generation to probably make it a total alien concept.
Ugh, I am a total blueblood. My mom never ceases to tell me all about it. I guess there is pride in heritage, I guess I am most proud to be related to John Quincy Adams, and his father
Outside of that- my lineage and a buck will get you a stale cup of coffee at the local greasy spoon.
My aunt wrote some book about it and all that- so what does all this mean if you have all this history and no money? Not a damn thing- I am here to tell you. But I guess I could get an invite to see the Queen of England or Prince Charles if I present it in the right light
So anyway- no suprises- most of my family has been researched to death, most of it before I was born, and there are illustrations and 8x10 glossies to prove it, and even now, DNA genetic testing to all the family members.
- I was really, really hoping for some "not of our line" genes in there somewhere, just to spice things up- but it never happened.My Grandma's generation was the last to actually be in arranged marriages, though my parents both didn't directly have thier marriage arranged, they did marry off the 'approved" list.
My generation is the first to break that cycle- my cousin was disowned by my uncle for marrying a hispanic man. She broke the cycle completely. He reconciled with her and jettisoned his racist beliefs before dying of cancer, so the family rift was forever healed, and now, I am engaged to a nice hispanic girl myself
- I have one cousin that married a Phillipina girl, and another that married a black girl. so, personally, I would have liked to have a little better variety in the ol' bloodline than boring old farts
What are the implications, both politically and culturally, for an America where "black" and "white" are not distinct and uncrossable boundaries, but fluid?
I think it is a good thing, soon, perhaps my kids generation, won't really understand racism- we are simply too blended to make a distiinction. I knew racism as a kid- from the white perspective- but my dauther will never know it like I did. So it may be one of those things that makes my daughter wonder if the generation before me was truly crazy.
I think my daughter' s generation will feel the same way about gays like "what was the big deal anyway?" like I feel about rock and roll and blue jeans today- though, at one point in our history- both could get ya beat!
Why are mixed race people routinely assigned to the group they most resemble, rather than to a group of their own with a claim on both heritages, or rather than just choosing the group they feel comfortable with?
Humans categorize and comparmentalize EVERYTIHNG. It is our nature- thats the meat group, that is the bread group, that is the dairy group, and then make sub-sets out of each one of them. It is natural for our minds to categorize everything. I believe Piaget called them "schemas" - our need to box everything up into a single understanding universal "truth".
So, when we have a cabbage and lettuce hybird vegetable- we usually try to pick one of those two boxes rather than create a whole new category. You know, "thinking outside the box"
How can attitudes to race that were shaped by centuries of slavery, and which, while they have changed somewhat, still survive more than a century after abolition, change (or be changed) to better reflect the reality of mixed races and cross-fertilised cultures that is modern-day America?
Because slavery, though it ended at the civil war- didn't mean equal rights, it just meant white poeple couldn't own black poeple as property.
Blacks as second class citizens and inferior "mud poeple" really didn't get turned around in the America psyche until the mid 70s- that is about the time I started to notice more acceptance between whites and blacks, and laws like ending "steerage' to make nieghborhoods stay white or black.
It is only in my time that when a black family moved into the nieghborhood, there wasn't 50 "for sale' signs popping up the next day.
Slavery as an institution may have ended in the 1860s, but the cultural bias didn't really start to lose out until the 1970s.
It will probably be a generation, my daughter's generation or my great grandkids generation to probably make it a total alien concept.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.