Why does America still endorse the One Drop Rule?

[L.Y.S.]

There was a thread in religion and philosophy called Miscegenation. The OP of the thread simply asked, "your thoughts"? The responses of posters varied mildly. Some thought wtf, others thought GREAT! At any rate, I've seen one post about racial purity. How the concept of racial purity is just ridiculous etc. Now I don't have not a problem with racial mixing. It is what is. It's neither good nor bad. I could give a damn. It's the simple product of two people of two different races having sex and producing offspring. Who people have sex with, and why they have sex with them is beyond my desire to care. However, I brought this topic up to talk about a societal slave law which is still very much respected by most Americans either consciously or unconsciously. This is the one-drop rule.

Now for those of you who are unfamiliar with the one-drop rule, it's basically that any percentile of black/African ancestry makes you black. Although it is no longer a de jure practice, it is still very much a de facto practice. Many black, white, and Asian people still consider mixed race people of black ancestry black. I sincerely disagree with the practice because I personally believe it produces negative side effects on the self images of both the mixed person and the said racial group. I understand that this is a somewhat controversial stance, but I think the concept that someone has a black grandpa therefore he is black is ridiculous. If none of his subsequent progenitors were black he is not black. What are your thoughts on this issue?

 

[zooterkin]

Now for those of you who are unfamiliar with the one-drop rule, it's basically that any percentile of black/African ancestry makes you black.

We're all black, then.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It wasn't the miscegenation thread but the white supremacist thread. In there it is important because it is like an anti semite finding out they have jewish heritage. It undercuts their bigotry.

 

[IllegalArgument]

It's stupid, but as ponderingturtle said. White supremacist believe they are "pure", showing they have even one non-white or jewish ancestor ruins their completely stupid idea of purity.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I place greater importance on self-identity. As far as I know, my ancestors have been Irish, and so I self-identify as such. Growing up, I was taught about the history of Ireland and was constantly hearing about how my family in Moate lived and spent lots of time with my cousins from dear old Ireland.
But what if I find out that there was a drop of German in my blood?
I'd still self-identify as Irish. What if I found out it was more than a drop, but that my birth father was actually Hispanic?
I'd still probably call myself Irish.
I go with how I was raised and those traditions.

 

[Wolrab]

I place greater importance on self-identity. As far as I know, my ancestors have been Irish, and so I self-identify as such. Growing up, I was taught about the history of Ireland and was constantly hearing about how my family in Moate lived and spent lots of time with my cousins from dear old Ireland.
But what if I find out that there was a drop of German in my blood?
I'd still self-identify as Irish. What if I found out it was more than a drop, but that my birth father was actually Hispanic?
I'd still probably call myself Irish.
I go with how I was raised and those traditions.

but one goddamned drop of English!

 

[Flo]

There was a thread in religion and philosophy called Miscegenation. The OP of the thread simply asked, "your thoughts"? The responses of posters varied mildly. Some thought wtf, others thought GREAT! At any rate, I've seen one post about racial purity. How the concept of racial purity is just ridiculous etc. Now I don't have not a problem with racial mixing. It is what is. It's neither good nor bad. I could give a damn. It's the simple product of two people of two different races having sex and producing offspring. Who people have sex with, and why they have sex with them is beyond my desire to care. However, I brought this topic up to talk about a societal slave law which is still very much respected by most Americans either consciously or unconsciously. This is the one-drop rule.

Now for those of you who are unfamiliar with the one-drop rule, it's basically that any percentile of black/African ancestry makes you black. Although it is no longer a de jure practice, it is still very much a de facto practice. Many black, white, and Asian people still consider mixed race people of black ancestry black. I sincerely disagree with the practice because I personally believe it produces negative side effects on the self images of both the mixed person and the said racial group. I understand that this is a somewhat controversial stance, but I think the concept that someone has a black grandpa therefore he is black is ridiculous. If none of his subsequent progenitors were black he is not black. What are your thoughts on this issue?

It's not only in America, it's the same everywhere : whatever your ancestry, you'll always be identified as a member of the "darkest/foreignest" part that shows up on your skin or features (slanted eyes, dark hair, etc.).

 

[L.Y.S.]

I place greater importance on self-identity. As far as I know, my ancestors have been Irish, and so I self-identify as such. Growing up, I was taught about the history of Ireland and was constantly hearing about how my family in Moate lived and spent lots of time with my cousins from dear old Ireland.
But what if I find out that there was a drop of German in my blood?
I'd still self-identify as Irish. What if I found out it was more than a drop, but that my birth father was actually Hispanic?
I'd still probably call myself Irish.
I go with how I was raised and those traditions.

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.

 

[L.Y.S.]

It wasn't the miscegenation thread but the white supremacist thread. In there it is important because it is like an anti semite finding out they have jewish heritage. It undercuts their bigotry.

No I was participating in multiple threads, but the topic did come up in that thread as well.

 

[kedo1981]

It's more of a guideline than a rule.

 

[L.Y.S.]

It's not only in America, it's the same everywhere : whatever your ancestry, you'll always be identified as a member of the "darkest/foreignest" part that shows up on your skin or features (slanted eyes, dark hair, etc.).

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. The means of justifying human suffering were necessary for perceived progress. Which I am personally not mad about. It is what it is, but race pretty much came about because colonization and slavery.

I totally disagree with the slanted eyes part. Most mixed Eurasians are able to proclaim both ancestries, and are generally well accepted by both communities. I feel that the Chinese are much less likely to accept a mixed race person as full Chinese.

 

[L.Y.S.]

It's more of a guideline than a rule.

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

 

[theprestige]

However, I brought this topic up to talk about a societal slave law which is still very much respected by most Americans either consciously or unconsciously. This is the one-drop rule.

Evidence?

I mean, "either consciously or unconsciously" leaves a loophole large enough to drive the entire Israelite population out of Egypt through, on dry land.

Basically any example of people choosing to accept or respect another's claimed heritage or ethnic background becomes support for your claim that they "unconsciously" endorse the ODR.

Even if we stipulate that some people with a black grandparent will claim a legitimate connection to black ethnicity, and even if we stipulate that some other people will variously respect, accept, or tolerate this claim, that's still a long way from having actual evidence that the One Drop Rule per se makes up a significant part of the mainstream American view on race and ethnicity.

I understand that this is a somewhat controversial stance, but I think the concept that someone has a black grandpa therefore he is black is ridiculous. If none of his subsequent progenitors were black he is not black. What are your thoughts on this issue?

I don't have much of an opinion either way. I'd like to understand yours a little better. Why do you make the cut-off at quarter-ancestry, for example? Why not half-ancestry, or eighth-ancestry?

And what's your definition of "black"? What specific genetic ancestries must a person's parents and grandparents have, to qualify as legitimately "black" your Many Drops Rule? How many drops does it take to be black, in your Rule?

Is your opinion one that you practice in real life, among your friends, family, acquaintances, and co-workers? Do you see yourself telling one-quarter Native Americans, "well, but you're not really, you know"? Telling ethnic African-Americans that their recent ancestors were mostly West Indian mulattoes, and they're probably more French-English than anything else?

Hrm.

I guess I do have something of an opinion, after all: Race and ethnicity in America are complex issues, and most Americans have abandoned the ODR as a practical matter, in favor of more subjective, more socially flexible, and more individually meaningful guidelines.

Where the ODR still obtains, it's not because it's a fundamental part of mainstream American thinking on race and ethnicity (i.e., not because "America still endorse the One Drop Rule"), but because of some legal necessity (e.g., eligibility for Native American recognition), or because it serves some racist or racialist viewpoint outside of the mainstream of American thought.

I would very much like to see your evidence that unconscious endorsement of the One Drop Rule is a "de facto practice" among "many black, white, and Asian" Americans. That's my opinion, in a nutshell.

 

[theprestige]

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

Does your guarantee come with a warranty? If it's defective do I get my money back?

What if I guarantee that almost nobody sees it as a rule?

 

[Denver]

Why does America still endorse the One Drop Rule?

...Many black, white, and Asian people still consider mixed race people of black ancestry black....

What are your thoughts on this issue?

"America" does not endorse a one drop rule.

How do you think it does? If you are quoting "Many black, white, and Asian people", what is your source? And how does that equate to "America"?

 

[Caper]

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.

Yeah... but if enough people buy into it, it kind of becomes a reality.

 

[Caper]

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.

I don't know but I did I quick Wiki search and it seems dark skin looked down upon as early as the 3rd century... I'm open to be corrected though.

 

[Caper]

BTW... is there one drop of anything but white on this entire message board?

 

[L.Y.S.]

I don't know but I did I quick Wiki search and it seems dark skin looked down upon as early as the 3rd century... I'm open to be corrected though.

Please provide a source and a quotation. I'm actually very interested in this.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Yeah... but if enough people buy into it, it kind of becomes a reality.

It's not reality, it's endorsed crap by mind slaves.