Why does America still endorse the One Drop Rule?

[theprestige]

Damn it caper you hit it on the head! The fools who think race is important have power. So long as they have power, the issue of race will ALWAYS be important. No amount of hippie free love will change that. Thank you Caper.

And again: Evidence that the fools in power endorse the one drop rule?

 

[Pup]

It would be pretty funny if true... But I'm not sure if that's true. 15%... that would mean one of his great grandparents would have been the guy (or maybe not)... usually that doesn't escape the family. I'm apt to believe that no matter whose DNA that dude gave, the show was coming up 15% black.

I was wondering about that. I'm not familiar with how DNA works, but could it be divided among a number of ancestors? In other words, one 5th great grandparent, a few 8th great grandmothers, etc., until the percentage equals enough?

The other thing I don't get is... On the one hand, if the origin of one's ancestral DNA is what matters, aren't we all pretty much 100% African? On the other hand, if an Asian couple moves to sub-Sahara Africa and has children, aren't those children just as much 100% sub-Saharan as someone born there 50,000 years ago, if region is all that matters?

So there must be a sweet spot in time that they use to define regional DNA, not so long ago that Homo sapiens were all living together, but not so recent that new immigrants have injected too much of their outside DNA.

 

[Flo]

And again: Evidence that the fools in power endorse the one drop rule?

however, the fools who dream of being in power ...

 

[Information Analyst]

A couple of times during the rough and tumble of election campaigns, I've been very surprised when an activist who has been criticised or lampooned for something has suddenly complained that her critics are "mocking a black person". As in, "you're BLACK? Have I suddenly gone colour blind or something?"

That's a bit like the reverse of Paxman asking George Galloway how he felt about ousting one of the few black women MPs.

 

[theprestige]

however, the fools who dream of being in power ...

Well, them, sure... probably some of them, anyway.

But the starting assumption of the thread is that "America" endorses the ODR. There's a lot of Americans who dream of being in power. I don't see much evidence that many of them endorse the ODR. Me, for example. I dream of being in power every day. I have no use at all for the ODR.

I think that the questions of race, ethnicity, and self-identity in America are much more complicated and nuanced than the OP suggests, and I think the solution the OP proposes is grossly oversimplified (and a little bit racist).

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Don't be surprised if they do it themselves. All the race debate is usually based on American tv, you'd be surprised how many times I've corrected people using African American....That... and the amount of Canadains who feel they have American legal rights from watching American legal shows.

Language Police here: "number", damn it "NUMBER".

OTW you're correct on the legal rights thing.

 

[fuelair]

Language Police here: "number", damn it "NUMBER".

OTW you're correct on the legal rights thing.

And, where would Canadains be found????

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

It would be pretty funny if true... But I'm not sure if that's true. 15%... that would mean one of his great grandparents would have been the guy (or maybe not)... usually that doesn't escape the family. I'm apt to believe that no matter whose DNA that dude gave, the show was coming up 15% black.

ISTR that Kofi Amin was once described in the US press as an African African-American.

As to the DNA testing - - I wouldn't think it too unlikely the idea that it is 15% or more for any given multi-generational citizen of the USA.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

ISTR that Kofi Amin was once described in the US press as an African African-American.

Kofi Annan?

Idi Amin?

 

[Ziggurat]

And, where would Canadains be found????

Canadenmark?

 

[I Ratant]

We're all black, then.

.
When considering the amount of raping that is common during a war, expecting "purity of blood" in anyone's lineage is stupid!

 

[I Ratant]

I'll have to say that self-identity is rubbish. That's how you get wiggers and chavs. People are what they are. As for ethnic distinctions that's quite different than racial distinctions. Pan-ethnicities aka race are completely different than nationalities.

Furthermore, you prove my point on why the one drop rule is stupid. Someone can be a majority of something, and society will still proclaim that they are the minority portion of their blood. That is in essence the one drop rule. If someone called you German instead of Irish, that would be the one-drop rule in action. Think of it that way even though it's certainly not analogous.

.
It is possible to exploit the "one-drop" rule also.

 

[I Ratant]

Well it's a terrible guideline either way, but I guarantee most people see it as a rule not an exception.

.
Misidentifying someone into a "lesser race" is so easy! Takes no effort at all.
Learning who that person is for real, can be so haaaaaaaaaard! Gollee!

 

[I Ratant]

I heard Shania Twain talk about her Native American heritage when her mother married a Native America... when Shania was 30 years old!

 

[L.Y.S.]

Wrong, we're both mixed. I don't have a problem with people calling me black & refer to myself as black fairly often. I see no reason why he should have a problem with it or shouldn't do the same.

You're not black, you're a mulatto. If both of your parents were not black then you certainly are not black.

 

[L.Y.S.]

.
Misidentifying someone into a "lesser race" is so easy! Takes no effort at all.
Learning who that person is for real, can be so haaaaaaaaaard! Gollee!

Liberals always do this stupid PC crap, no one said mulattos are inferior. It's funny that white people get to say mixed people aren't white with virtual impunity, but when black people say the same we're racist. A double standard if I've ever seen one. Mental slavery is alive and well in this PC liberal society.

 

[L.Y.S.]

.
When considering the amount of raping that is common during a war, expecting "purity of blood" in anyone's lineage is stupid!

PC garbage if I've ever seen it. If a white woman got raped during a war by a black man the offspring wouldn't be considered white, but if a black woman got raped by a white man during a war then the child would be considered black. This "pawning off" of offspring has been happening for centuries. This is what I fight to change. Mixed people represent the merging of two groups, not the sum total of one group and the lack of responsibility of another. It's time for this one drop nonsense to end. When people like Redtail can call himself black, anyone can be black.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Am I the only one who thinks this thread has turned weirdly racist in the last page or two?

Wow, really? You're just so sensitive that we can't bring up a topic without getting a few booboos huh? My point was to prove how in use the one drop rule still is. All of you have proven my point substantially. When people resort to saying, "we're all black", "color doesn't matter, but I don't consider a mixed person white", or have a mixed guy saying "I consider myself black", then in essence what people are saying is, "yes, the one drop rule is still valid even if I don't outright say it, my actions in defending this rule prove that it is still valid to me".

The little tactic that you're using is one that has been used for centuries, but it ends in the present. Black people have been conned into believing that anyone can be them, or that one drop makes a person whole. Black people have been pawned off for centuries. We are the rats and the prospective trash dump of the Earth, the lowest of the low. This societal status ends in my lifetime. You will not shut me up or invalidate me. This conversation must continue.

 

[theprestige]

Wow, really? Just so sensitive can't bring up a topic without getting a few booboos.

I have no complaints about the topic. Talk about race in America all you want. I said the thread is turning weirdly racist because it seems to me that in making strict distinctions between "white", "black", and "mulatto" people, and deciding who belongs to each group, you are using explicitly racist language to make your case.

Can I ask you something? Who, exactly, counts as "white" and "black" in your formulation?

Are Swedes and Danes white? Is the child of a Swede and a Dane still white? What about the French? Are they white? Is the child of a Dane and a Frenchman still white? What about the child of a Frenchman and a Spaniard?

What about the child of a Ukrainan and Serb? An Italian and an Irishman?

Are Kenyans and Nigerians black? Is the child of a Kenyan and a Nigerian still black? What about a Kenyan and a Moroccan? A Libyan and an Algerian? A Haitian and a Jamaican?

What defines these categories, for you? Skin color? Region of ancestral origin? Established ethnography? What?

Or is your point actually that we're all "mixed", and we should give up categories like "white" and "black" entirely?

My point was to prove how in use the one drop rule is.

I think you may have a point, but I think "one drop rule" is probably the wrong name for what you're talking about. Or maybe it's a good place to start, but you may need to figure out other ways to develop or explain your idea, if you think people aren't understanding what you mean by "one drop rule".

When you can have people say, "we're all black", or have a mixed guy say, "I consider myself black" then in essence what people are saying is, "yes the one drop rule is still valid, even if I don't outright say it, my actions in defending this rule prove that it is still valid to me".

There's that "unconscious" loophole I noted in my reply to your OP.

According to you, anyone who self-identifies as black doesn't do so for ethnic or subcultural reasons. Even if they think that's why they're doing it, you get to say that they're unconsciously endorsing the one drop rule.

In your analysis, it is impossible for anyone to make a racial identification about themselves or about anyone else, on any other basis than a strict reference to degree of blood purity. Anyone who believes they are doing so on a different basis is unconsciously doing it on the basis of degree of blood purity.

Your claim about how in use the rule is only makes sense if we accept your assumption that every racial identification is an application of that rule.

The little tactic that you have used is one that has been used for centuries, but it ends in the present.

What tactic? Asking you to explain yourself better? Analyzing the implications and supporting evidence of your claims? Is that tactic you're trying to end?

 

[Pup]

Can I ask you something? Who, exactly, counts as "white" and "black" in your formulation?

Yes, please. I'm really curious about that. I don't see how one can get away from the one-drop rule (or at least what I'd call a one-drop rule) as long as one is using percentages to categorize people as white, black, mulatto, etc.

And yet because no one is pure--or at least no white person is pure--percentages are always necessary. I gave an example in Post #70 of how a mother with only one black great great great grandparent in an otherwise white family could prevent her offspring from being considered white, based on L.Y.S.'s reckoning.