Why does America still endorse the One Drop Rule?

[Delvo]

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.

No, the mindset of the one-drop rule would be finding out, or just alleging, that someone who looks white had one black ancestor ages ago among an otherwise white ancestry, or has a few isolated alleles (genes) normally found in black people, and declaring THAT person black DESPITE appearances. The applicability even when it's invisible is the whole point.

 

[quixotecoyote]

No, the mindset of the one-drop rule would be finding out, or just alleging, that someone who looks white had one black ancestor ages ago among an otherwise white ancestry, or has a few isolated alleles (genes) normally found in black people, and declaring THAT person black DESPITE appearances. The applicability even when it's invisible is the whole point.

One of Mark Twain's lesser known novels "Pudd'nhead Wilson" was largely about parodying that rule and it's effects. A slave who was 1/16 black switched babies with her master to ensure her child's (1/32 black) freedom and no one could tell, but the 'white' child was declared black based on that assumed but undetectable 1/32nd portion. Hilarity ensues.

 

[Flo]

No, the mindset of the one-drop rule would be finding out, or just alleging, that someone who looks white had one black ancestor ages ago among an otherwise white ancestry, or has a few isolated alleles (genes) normally found in black people, and declaring THAT person black DESPITE appearances. The applicability even when it's invisible is the whole point.

both views are commonly held by racists and proponents of "pure blood" ancestry.

 

[Pup]

both views are commonly held by racists and proponents of "pure blood" ancestry.

I agree. There's no single, official definition of what the one-drop rule is or was, due to a patchwork of shifting state laws and social situations over time. It's always been a legal and social struggle, and since the days of Darwin and especially the later days of the "out of Africa" origin, can't be taken too literally, so there's always some necessary fudging. Some discussion on U.S. laws: http://books.google.com/books?id=SKFfmCFM02MC&pg=PA47

I think the idea, though, that a person with some black blood is black but a person with some white blood is not white, is well within the spirit of the "one drop."

Some more examples of the legal craziness: http://essays.backintyme.com/item/10

From the above link:

Their confusion was due to a conflict between the statute under which the Meltons were indicted [for fornication due to their interracial marriage being illegal] and an earlier statute. The law of 1836 had forbidden weddings (but not marriages) between White and Black, and had explicitly defined as “Black” anyone with one-eighth or more Negro blood. Although the 1836 law had punished, with a $100 fine, ministers and magistrates who performed such weddings, it did not declare such marriages void, nor did it punish interracial couples who married in defiance of the law (out of state, for example). In short, the old 1836 law was explicitly based upon the rule of blood fraction. The new 1838 law, in contrast, declared interracial marriages void and defined interracial couples as criminal fornicators, no matter where they were wed. On the other hand, the new law did not specify which rule should be used to position someone on the Black side of the endogamous color line. Hence, the jury’s confusion.

 

[theprestige]

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!!!

And that might be an interesting social issue worth discussing, except that you can't seem to avoid bundling it with hilariously racist statements like:

God, it's clear that neither of the men are full black or they'd be as black as dirt like me.

 

[superfreddy]

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.

If you're going to lie, make sure the source you post at least supports part of your lie. Here's from your Wiki link:

Descendants of indigenous peoples, such as the Quechua and Aymara, or the Urarina[28] of Amazonia make up the majority of the population in Bolivia (56%) and, per some sources, in Peru (44%).[29][30] In Ecuador, Amerindians are a large minority that comprises two-fifths of the population. The white/European population is also a significant element in most other former Portuguese colonies.

South America is also home to one of the largest populations of Africans. This group is also significantly present in Guyana, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Suriname, French Guiana, and Ecuador. Mestizos (mixed white and Amerindian) are the largest ethnic group in Paraguay, Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador and the second group in Peru. East Indians form the largest ethnic group in Guyana. Brazil followed by Peru also have the largest Japanese, Korean and Chinese communities in South America.[31]
The demographics of Colombia include approximately 30% white and European descendants,[32] while in Peru, European descendants are the third group in importance (15%).[33] Compared to other South American countries, the people of European descent are more of a majority in Argentina,[34] Chile [35][36] and Uruguay,[35] and are about half of the population of Brazil.[37][38][39] In Venezuela, the majority claimed to be multiracial and white, 49.9% and 42.2% black or mestizo, respectively.[40]

Where did you get the 50% whites figure?

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.

Really? You come to your conclusion based on soap operas?

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.

Who is this "they" you keep mentioning? Congress? States? Local Ordinances?

Who let this guy out of the wood works?

That's rather insulting, without any provocation whatsoever.

 

[superfreddy]

Casta

Did you even bother to read the link you provided? "Casta" is an 18th century system. Do you have any more recent information?

 

[theprestige]

God, it's clear that neither of the men are full black or they'd be as black as dirt like me.

Black as dirt?

Black as dirt?

Black as dirt?

Black as dirt?

 

[L.Y.S.]

Did you even bother to read the link you provided? "Casta" is an 18th century system. Do you have any more recent information?

It's still heavily in the culture man. I really don't have time to explain something you can find on a search in google. I've already given you a good enough resource.

 

[L.Y.S.]

No, the mindset of the one-drop rule would be finding out, or just alleging, that someone who looks white had one black ancestor ages ago among an otherwise white ancestry, or has a few isolated alleles (genes) normally found in black people, and declaring THAT person black DESPITE appearances. The applicability even when it's invisible is the whole point.

*Bangs head on desk*

So clearly you don't get it.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Black as dirt?

Black as dirt?

Black as dirt?

Black as dirt?

Nope, as black as dirt.

 

[L.Y.S.]

And that might be an interesting social issue worth discussing, except that you can't seem to avoid bundling it with hilariously racist statements like:

It's not racist, it's true. I'm a pretty dark fellow. There's no mistaking my place of origin. What blacks have been fooled to think in the US is that anyone with the smallest margin of black ancestry is black. A person of mixed ancestry clearly looks different from a person who has majority and pure ancestry. So I don't buy Delvo's crappy excuse of visible lineage. It's been the same crappy excuse used for the past 400 years.

 

[L.Y.S.]

If you're going to lie, make sure the source you post at least supports part of your lie. Here's from your Wiki link:

Descendants of indigenous peoples, such as the Quechua and Aymara, or the Urarina[28] of Amazonia make up the majority of the population in Bolivia (56%) and, per some sources, in Peru (44%).[29][30] In Ecuador, Amerindians are a large minority that comprises two-fifths of the population. The white/European population is also a significant element in most other former Portuguese colonies.

South America is also home to one of the largest populations of Africans. This group is also significantly present in Guyana, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Suriname, French Guiana, and Ecuador. Mestizos (mixed white and Amerindian) are the largest ethnic group in Paraguay, Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador and the second group in Peru. East Indians form the largest ethnic group in Guyana. Brazil followed by Peru also have the largest Japanese, Korean and Chinese communities in South America.[31]
The demographics of Colombia include approximately 30% white and European descendants,[32] while in Peru, European descendants are the third group in importance (15%).[33] Compared to other South American countries, the people of European descent are more of a majority in Argentina,[34] Chile [35][36] and Uruguay,[35] and are about half of the population of Brazil.[37][38][39] In Venezuela, the majority claimed to be multiracial and white, 49.9% and 42.2% black or mestizo, respectively.[40]

Where did you get the 50% whites figure?

My fault, I didn't catch that era. The numbers are pretty close. I'll find the actual numbers. I just didn't want to use Latin America since you limited the context of the conversation to South America. South America has more whites than the rest of Latin America due to the importing of whites after WWII.

Really? You come to your conclusion based on soap operas?

Popular culture is a reflection of the aspirations of any given culture. Don't buy the bs that TV and media don't influence the public. Hardly any black reporters or actors are to be found on Hispanic TV. Most of them are white with a few key exceptions.

Who is this "they" you keep mentioning? Congress? States? Local Ordinances?

The public who seems to conform to outdated one-drop rules which you are fiercely battling to uphold.

That's rather insulting, without any provocation whatsoever.

No, what is disrespectful is a person with one drop of African ancestry jumping into a thread saying, "I can qualify as black". These kinds of statements have cheapened the meaning of blackness, and have caused mass confusion amongst blacks in America. And excuse me if I don't buy the everyone is mixed bs. According to genetic tests done in Mexico, most mestizos have a majority European ancestry. Debunking the myth of a truly "mixed and diverse" society. Again, the goal of most Hispanics is to become white and reach the top of their precious Casta pyramid. It's still deep in the culture, whether you recognize it or not. Furthermore, many of the racial categories used during colonial period are still used by Latin American demographers and government officials in the modern era.