Why does America still endorse the One Drop Rule?

[L.Y.S.]

Actually not. Native Latino are descended from Asians who crossed the Bering Straits land bridge to America over 10,000 years ago. They share the common traits of Asians with straight black hair, shot noses, broad faces, short statue and medium skin tone. They are mainly the folk coming to America.
Hispanics who descended from the people of Spain if you will are white with large noses, fine straight hair, tall with white skin are from the Spainards who invaded South and Central America. They are two different races entirely. The native populations have a variety of names like Inuit in Alaska, Native Americans in the USA, and Amerindians in Central and South America. Central, South America. Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic and Islands are obsessed with color. We in North America are not.

We in North America oversimplify it. The Latino obsession with color is mainly to reach the top of their precious "La Casta" racial caste system. Only the whitest Latinos or those connected to them tend to occupy significant positions of power. It's rare that Native or Black Latinos gain influence in Latin America. There are some key exceptions to this rule. However, Latin America is still arguably worse when it comes to racial rights and freedoms than Anglo-America. The U.S. and Canada pretty much have all Latin American countries beat in this aspect.

 

[AlBell]

That's because it was set up that way. Prior to the inception of race in the 15th century the only culture that practiced the color thing was India. The concept of color as an issue only came about with colonization and chattel slavery.

Leading to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden

 

[Delvo]

When Redtail can still call himself black because of some black grandparents, the one-drop rule is alive and well.

you don't qualify for black. You have a black grandparent for god sakes. This is what I talk about when I talk about the one-drop rule.

Those aren't one-drop cases. A grandparent is the source of about a fourth of anybody's nuclear DNA. That makes your examples, at best, examples of a one-fourth rule.

The difference is not just a matter of what to call it or exactly what fraction to draw a line at. They are based on two fundamentally different, even functionally nearly opposite, principles. The commonly held concept you're reacting to is that someone may identify with any race which constitutes enough of his/her ancestry to have a visible effect on his/her physical features. The one-drop rule was explicitly for cases in which the race in question did not constitute enough of someone's ancestry to be visible at all.

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 fractions need to have a perfect power of two (2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128...) in the denominator (below the line). It can't be thirds or fifths or elevenths because nobody has 3, 5, or 11 parents... at least, technically. But after enough generations, a big enough power-of-two denominator allows for decent approximations of other smaller denominators; for example,
11/32 (11 of someone's 32 great-great-great grandparents) is about one third, and
13/64 (13 of someone's 64 great-great-great-great grandparents) is about one fifth. At 128ths, any one ancestor's genome contributes less than 1% of the descendant's genome
(1/128<1/100), so people's genetic ancestry test results can be reported as percentages. (Most people in the USA who call themselves "black" have between 80% and 93% African DNA.)

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.

Right before European Colonialism began.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Kofi Annan?

Idi Amin?

Maybe it was both?

 

[L.Y.S.]

In this thread? I apologize if I missed it. I have avatars and signatures turned off on this forum, so if you've put the info there, I'll never see it. To be honest, race and gender on the Internet don't mean much to me.

It's cool, you made an honest mistake. Let's move forward from it.

 

[Pup]

Stop moving the goal posts. I've never supported purity, point me to the post where I vehemently supported purity. This is not about racial purity, it is about racial integrity. There is a huge difference. That same women could still be considered black , even though she's clearly white. AND THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL I'D CALL THAT WOMAN OR HER OFFSPING BLACK. Stop twisting my words. If that woman has white parents, and has a white spouse, then her kids are white.

I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm trying to figure out how you define white (or black), because one can't have mixed-race people unless there are unmixed-race people to produce them.

This from another post defined it nicely:

Having an ancestor of another "single race background" (3 or more generations of ancestry to one pan-ethnic) in the past 3 generations makes them mixed. For example, if I had a great parent who was white, then I would be white. If my last white ancestor was a great great grandparent, then I would be black. 3 generations of one pan-ethnic group makes you that race....
...
Nope, three generations of black ancestry and you're black. Meaning that an individual with one non-black relative in the last 3 generations is mixed.

I'm not quite clear on the sentence I've bolded. Do you mean if you had a great grandparent who was white then you would be mixed race? That would be the way I'd understand it from the rest of the definition and it seems a simple typo.

Okay, if so, thinking out loud...

That sounds like it would shift the burden of the one-drop rule, so that it would take just one drop to make a person lose their racial "integrity" and be considered mixed-race.

Someone please correct me if I've made a mistake in the following:

Let's say Susie has all black parents, grandparents and great grandparents. She's "black," by that definition, because she has three generations of one pan-ethnic group, no ancestor of another single-race background, and no non-black ancestors in her last three generations.

But let's look at Susie's great grandfather Joe. We've defined him as black, because if he wasn't, Susie would be mixed-race. But is he really black? To tell, we have to go back three generations again. We discover that all his parents, grandparents and great grandparents are also black, except for one great grandfather, Sam, whose race we don't know.

If Sam is black, Joe would be black and Susie would be black.

If Sam is white or mixed-race, Joe would be mixed-race and that would mean Susie would be mixed-race.

Her racial identity--whether she could call herself black or mixed race--would hinge on the race of Sam, her great grandfather's great grandfather, or 1/64 of her bloodlines, if I've calculated that right.

But wait. There's more! The only way to know if Sam is truly black, and therefore Joe is black and Susie is black, is if we go three generations back from Sam. If his great grandfather was white, he'd be mixed race, and Joe would be mixed race, and therefore Susie would be mixed race. Susie's racial "integrity"--her ability to call herself black rather than mixed race--could hinge on 1/512th of her bloodlines. And it could keep ratcheting back, as one drop of another race would make someone's great grandfather mixed race and therefore Susie mixed race.

There are people who would use the above to say that race doesn't exist, but I disagree. I just don't think it can be defined so precisely that one definition is the only final one that can be used to correct how others self-identify.

 

[TjW]

Stop moving the goal posts. I've never supported purity, point me to the post where I vehemently supported purity. This is not about racial purity, it is about racial integrity. There is a huge difference. That same women could still be considered black , even though she's clearly white. AND THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL I'D CALL THAT WOMAN OR HER OFFSPING BLACK. Stop twisting my words. If that woman has white parents, and has a white spouse, then her kids are white.

What ARE you supporting?

 

[L.Y.S.]

I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm trying to figure out how you define white (or black), because one can't have mixed-race people unless there are unmixed-race people to produce them.

No, they just can't mixed with a mixed race person and be considered that race within the last 3 generations. If the person within the last 3 generations has mated back into a majority of one group population, then they are of the race. For example if I had a mulatto great grandmother and each of my subsequent progenitors have been black for three generations or more, then I would be considered black. I believe the percentiles still place a great role. 7 5% or greater of one race makes you that race.

This from another post defined it nicely:



I'm not quite clear on the sentence I've bolded. Do you mean if you had a great grandparent who was white then you would be mixed race? That would be the way I'd understand it from the rest of the definition and it seems a simple typo.

Okay, if so, thinking out loud...

That sounds like it would shift the burden of the one-drop rule, so that it would take just one drop to make a person lose their racial "integrity" and be considered mixed-race.

Someone please correct me if I've made a mistake in the following:

Let's say Susie has all black parents, grandparents and great grandparents. She's "black," by that definition, because she has three generations of one pan-ethnic group, no ancestor of another single-race background, and no non-black ancestors in her last three generations.

But let's look at Susie's great grandfather Joe. We've defined him as black, because if he wasn't, Susie would be mixed-race. But is he really black? To tell, we have to go back three generations again. We discover that all his parents, grandparents and great grandparents are also black, except for one great grandfather, Sam, whose race we don't know.

If Sam is black, Joe would be black and Susie would be black.

If Sam is white or mixed-race, Joe would be mixed-race and that would mean Susie would be mixed-race.

Her racial identity--whether she could call herself black or mixed race--would hinge on the race of Sam, her great grandfather's great grandfather, or 1/64 of her bloodlines, if I've calculated that right.

But wait. There's more! The only way to know if Sam is truly black, and therefore Joe is black and Susie is black, is if we go three generations back from Sam. If his great grandfather was white, he'd be mixed race, and Joe would be mixed race, and therefore Susie would be mixed race. Susie's racial "integrity"--her ability to call herself black rather than mixed race--could hinge on 1/512th of her bloodlines. And it could keep ratcheting back, as one drop of another race would make someone's great grandfather mixed race and therefore Susie mixed race.

There are people who would use the above to say that race doesn't exist, but I disagree. I just don't think it can be defined so precisely that one definition is the only final one that can be used to correct how others self-identify.

No, I meant mixed race.

I too disagree that race does not exist, but it should be determined by a combination of ancestry and blood quantum.

 

[L.Y.S.]

What ARE you supporting?

What I've posted at least 10 times.

 

[Mumbles]

I'm mostly just amused that L.Y.S thinks (s)he's the only person here who grew up in the Crack Era...

 

[L.Y.S.]

I'm mostly just amused that L.Y.S thinks (s)he's the only person here who grew up in the Crack Era...

*Sigh*

He mumbles, not she. I've said that twice in the thread now. Let's be respectful. No I don't think I'm the only one who grew up in the crack era, but I seem to be the only one expressing frustration about it.

 

[superfreddy]

With the exception of natives and Afro-Latinos, most Hispanics are white/near white and will be absorbed into white populations in the up and coming decades. You are not a mulatto, you are quadroon. If you have a third generation of white you are white.

ETA: Oh, and you don't qualify for black. You have a black grandparent for god sakes. This is what I talk about when I talk about the one-drop rule.

I actually had to look that one up. I hate labels!

My point was that under the so called one drop rule, I could qualify as black, although I shown no visual characteristics of the race.

Someone else already corrected you on the "most Hispanic are white" comment. I can say with absolute certainty that you're 100% wrong on that assessment. In South America, you have packets of white, European looking individuals, usually descendants of Italians, Germans or Irish immigrants who moved to South America during the first half of the 20th century. There are blacks, descendants of African slaves, there are natives "Indians" and everyone else is truly mixed, or as it's officially called by government entities in many countries, "mestizo".

 

[superfreddy]

We in North America oversimplify it. The Latino obsession with color is mainly to reach the top of their precious "La Casta" racial caste system. Only the whitest Latinos or those connected to them tend to occupy significant positions of power. It's rare that Native or Black Latinos gain influence in Latin America. There are some key exceptions to this rule. However, Latin America is still arguably worse when it comes to racial rights and freedoms than Anglo-America. The U.S. and Canada pretty much have all Latin American countries beat in this aspect.

This is plainly wrong. There is no such thing as La Casta. Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

In regards to whites occupying significant positions of power, let's look at some of the presidents in South America:

Venezuela - dark skin mestizo
Ecuador - dark skin mestizo
Peru - Native
Bolivia - Native

That's 4 out of 10. I would not call that "key exceptions to the rule"

 

[superfreddy]

Getting back to the OP, I don't think America still endorses the one drop rule. I think racists endorse the ODR

 

[L.Y.S.]

Who let this guy out of the wood works?

I actually had to look that one up. I hate labels!

My point was that under the so called one drop rule, I could qualify as black, although I shown no visual characteristics of the race.

Someone else already corrected you on the "most Hispanic are white" comment. I can say with absolute certainty that you're 100% wrong on that assessment. In South America, you have packets of white, European looking individuals, usually descendants of Italians, Germans or Irish immigrants who moved to South America during the first half of the 20th century. There are blacks, descendants of African slaves, there are natives "Indians" and everyone else is truly mixed, or as it's officially called by government entities in many countries, "mestizo".

In the United States 52% of all Hispanics are white. In South America ~50% of Hispanics are white. Seems like a reasonable majority to me. Damn near most.

This is plainly wrong. There is no such thing as La Casta. Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

In regards to whites occupying significant positions of power, let's look at some of the presidents in South America:

Venezuela - dark skin mestizo
Ecuador - dark skin mestizo
Peru - Native
Bolivia - Native

That's 4 out of 10. I would not call that "key exceptions to the rule"

Casta

It's alive and well whether you like it or not. Ever look at one of the soap operas or day time talk shows? Rarely any blacks, natives, or seriously dark people on there. Just an observation that I'm pointing out to you.

Getting back to the OP, I don't think America still endorses the one drop rule. I think racists endorse the ODR

Always with the racism card. So in other words you don't know anything about the situation. Got cha. Oh and btw, if they didn't endorse the one drop rule, Barack Obama wouldn't be considered black. Just pointing that out for you.

Come with your A game next time.

 

[Delvo]

When Redtail can still call himself black because of some black grandparents, the one-drop rule is alive and well.

you don't qualify for black. You have a black grandparent for god sakes. This is what I talk about when I talk about the one-drop rule.

Those aren't one-drop cases. A grandparent is the source of about a fourth of anybody's nuclear DNA. That makes your examples, at best, examples of a one-fourth rule.

The difference is not just a matter of what to call it or exactly what fraction to draw a line at. They are based on two fundamentally different, even functionally nearly opposite, principles. The commonly held concept you're reacting to is that someone may identify with any race which constitutes enough of his/her ancestry to have a visible effect on his/her physical features. The one-drop rule was explicitly for cases in which the race in question did not constitute enough of someone's ancestry to be visible at all.

if they didn't endorse the one drop rule, Barack Obama wouldn't be considered black.

That isn't a one-drop example. It's an example of naming one of the parts of someone's background that's a large enough fraction to be easily visible.

 

[L.Y.S.]

That isn't a one-drop example. It's an example of naming one of the parts of someone's background that's a large enough fraction to be easily visible.

THAT'S TEXTBOOK ONE DROP RULE!!! God, it's clear that neither of the men are full black or they'd be as black as dirt like me.

Could people stop skirting around the issue and let's admit that one-drop rules are still pervasive in our society. Once we get that out of the way, we can have a serious discussion about fixing it.

 

[Pup]

THAT'S TEXTBOOK ONE DROP RULE!!! God, it's clear that neither of the men are full black or they'd be as black as dirt like me.

Could people stop skirting around the issue and let's admit that one-drop rules are still pervasive in our society. Once we get that out of the way, we can have a serious discussion about fixing it.

I've got to agree with L.Y.S. on that. When I look at Obama, I can clearly see he has white ancestry. So why do people call him black? Leaving out mulatto, quadroon, mustee, and all those old words, if the categories must be "black" or "white" and someone doesn't look completely white, society tends to categorize them as "black." That's the mindset of the one-drop rule.

Doonesbury had a great strip about it:
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i191/hissyspit/db081105.gif

 

[Flo]

I've got to agree with L.Y.S. on that. When I look at Obama, I can clearly see he has white ancestry. So why do people call him black? Leaving out mulatto, quadroon, mustee, and all those old words, if the categories must be "black" or "white" and someone doesn't look completely white, society tends to categorize them as "black." That's the mindset of the one-drop rule.

and it wouldn't be such a problem if it wasn't bundled up with all kinds of negative stereotypes associated with "blacks" ...

 

[Pup]

and it wouldn't be such a problem if it wasn't bundled up with all kinds of negative stereotypes associated with "blacks" ...

Yes, the one-drop idea itself isn't necessarily negative. One way that ethnicities/cultures disappear is for a dominant group to assimilate them, so as soon as someone looks close enough to the dominant group, they become one of them. A one-drop mindset can keep traditions alive that would otherwise disappear. Some members of Native American tribes have encouraged and relied on the one-drop rule as a benefit.