I entitled it Jamaica's most beautiful white woman just to illustrate the absurdity of the one drop rule and the social brouhahas it repeatedly raises. My blog presumes an audience of African people, so my words should be heard from an African perspective.
One of the things you will hear from Africans who come to settle in the West say is "but they are not really black!!", when they see biracials and light-skinned black described as labelled as Black.
But the real issue here again is the inimical agenda the Western white establishment has towards Black people as Kola Boof defines them. It is truly annoying when a lot of African diaspora in the West are foolishly happy to go along it with it whether wittingly or not.
The lady depicted here, Jacqueline, featured in a BBC documentary, Motherland - A Genetic Journey, that traced the origins of a group of Afro-Caribbeans living in the UK. She is of 72% African ancestry and 28% European ancestry. If Afro-Caribbeans or Africans adopted the so called one-drop-rule as regards being a white person, she would be a white woman under the rule. Ghanaians or Jamaicans if they insisted, could have beauty contests for the most beautiful white woman in their country and a woman like her would easily win.
This reflects the nonsense of labeling mixed race people as black when it comes to beauty contests in America and Europe. Even if in terms of social identity some people are classified as black it doesn't make sense in contests regarding physical traits.
In the era of slavery mixed race people were slaves and suffered all the indignities black people did, and also suffered under the colour bar after slavery was abolished. At least if they were not biologically black they shared the tribulations and oppressions of their black (some might say darker complexioned) brethren. Marriage was still forbidden in some states even if some mixed race people couldn't be told apart from whites, and were only seen as black or coloured because birth records showed it or their family history was known. Even if mixed race folks retained their light complexions via breeding preferences they were still under the colour bar. American laws did not make room for a middle zone.
Come the 50s and 60s with Civil Rights Movement and Equal Rights Amendment. Mixed marriages are now legal in many states and more people are born to black and white parents, i.e not mixed parents or light-skinned blacks. The unions involve parents born to white families, making the children part of white extended families. The children are of the same complexion as multigenerational mixed race people, aka, light-skinned blacks, and on account of that acquire the designation of 'black'. Never mind that they still have the white half of their families in their lives, and where marriages break down, that means the mother, who is usually the white half of the family as there are more relationships between black males and white females than vice versa. Never mind that some the parents feel hurt when some of the children identify as black because they feel excluded from their child's self-image, and even more so when their whole family is identified as black, to their sole exclusion.
Then we move on the case of beauty contests and Oscar awards. Here we see mixed race women winning as black women. We are not even talking about multigenerational 'light-skinned' blacks. We are talking about people born to mixed parents in the 80s and later and now it doesn't make sense anymore. And we see those who are actually black as in passing for natives in Africa getting completely sidelined. What then does black mean? It now turns into a label a dominant white majority uses to rig the scene to favour those directly descended from them and still claim to be non-discriminatory. Witness the example of so many 'Native Americans' who make you wonder why the term Red Indian ever got to be applied to them.
When you analyze it correctly you realize that white people could just as easily accept their mixed race extended family members as whites, not just at the family level, but in their legal status as well, allowing them to label themselves, and have acceptance of that label enforced. Black people aka 'dark-skinned blacks' have been in that condition for ages (not that they had much choice), so why can't white people? In a sane environment a distinction could be made between belonging to a historically black or white community and membership of a race. For instance consider patriarchal cultures of both races, in which marrying a man involved the woman moving to the man's village or town, settling there and becoming part of the man's clan or tribe. Interracial marriage would mean mixed race children being labelled as black or white depending on who the father was.
What is the real agenda here?
When you observe American media it seems what we are looking at is really an attempt to dissociate the quality of being black from any sense of national identity. In that black is being turned into the quality of having some Negro ancestry, and being divorced from any association with nationhood. It is being linked with a notion of inferiority. Projecting an image of blackness with mixed race people being labeled as black and appearing to be in the forefront of the affairs of black people is what the image of being black seems to be about. As an African black means being part of nation-states of black people, nations ruled by a black hierarchy. That means a nation where all the people at all levels of society are black. A nation where kings, queens, the president, bishops, supreme court judges, military commanders etc are black. Yet the image of blacks in America seems absolutely divorced from that. Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment industry seem to be prefer an image were mixed race people dominate positive images of blacks and dark skin more associated with negativity and lower status.
There are some interesting debates on Youtube on this one, where a woman born of African parents slams the mixed race vlogger who states "I'm black"* which although making sense in one case doesn't make sense in another. It looks like mixed race people especially those of black and white parentage, ie African American and White American or more inclined to say "I'm black" outright, rather than "I'm white". They prefer to claim a black identity and are not so confident about claiming a white identity, probably because white people don't accept racial mixture as white, whereas black people do, or have been forced or taught to.
At the end of the day it seems to boil down to agendas. One is to package mixed race people, especially in the case of females, as the agreeable face of black entertainment to a predominantly white and Hispanic audience who may identify with them more. The second is to dissociate the black image from its black African character, from any meaningful sense of national identities, simply making it a trait that affects Africans to a greater degree and mixed race people to a lesser degree. It aims to make Africans to be an inferior people possessed of the trait who are simply lucky enough to have territories of their own that white people are more worthy of managing and owning, and eventually to colonize.
Black people both in Africa and within the diaspora need to understand this deeper agenda and stop it in its tracks.
PS. The video by the mixed race woman titled "I'm black" has been removed probably because it attracted too many adverse comments, but there is follow up I'm Very Black - YouTube.
-------------------- The Habsburg Agenda - Defending Western Christian civilization Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where is the one drop rule applied? Craig Cobb isn't granted black status in the U.S. There has to be some visible "black features." Beyonce and Rih are considered black because race/racism as a system will treat a Malcolm X, Beyonce or Rihanna as blacks.
What's been called more into question is white passing and ambiguous looking people who systemic racism would probably never impact. The only reason they're accepted in black society is because black African societies outside Africa have no tribal identities to allow such peoples a right to claim a history that is legitimately part of them and the same cultural practices handed down to them by their ancestors. Ambiguous/White passing Berbers aren't stripped of history, nor feel ashamed of the cultural practices handed down to them if they're not labeled black. They fall back on the history and culture of their tribes and if at some point the tribes were mostly black so be it.
The other half of the problem is something I already asked: What positive associations to darkness can blacks truly accept? Whites and lighter Asians associate their pale skin with wealth. What is the black response that values the darkest person? "We can stay in the sun melanin rich chocolate" isn't working and we need to accept that.
Ejecting Beyonce, Rihanna or Malcolm X won't solve the matter of making black people value darkness. In the U.S and in other parts of the black world, darker people make fun of people darker than themselves. Darker skin is also ridiculed along gendered lines. Darker men have found an emotional solace in darkness helping them to feel more masculine. This type of solution is only limited to certain parts of the black world however and even where it does exist, it never extends to being of any comfort to darker women.
When blacks want lighter skin but don't have the natural access they want? They artificially make more light brights anyway, destroying the whole point of considering the ejection of lighter people.
...And then once lighter some of them will disrespect those that aren't as light. Nobody wants to be the darkest, especially if a woman. If a foundation for value of darkness was established the darkest woman would be of equal or higher footing than the lightest. Beyonce and Lupita would be equally good choices or Lupitas would always have an easier time. Lighter skin wouldn't be considered for ejection because it'd be of equal or lower placement in the society once darkness established a value blacks could accept.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though provoking! I never looked at it from this perspective.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Where is the one drop rule applied? Craig Cobb isn't grated black status in the U.S. There has to be some visible "black features." Beyonce and Rih are considered black because race/racism as a system will treat a Malcolm X, Beyonce or Rihanna as blacks.
What's been called more into question is white passing and ambiguous looking people who systemic racism would probably never impact. The only reason they're accepted in black society is because black African societies outside Africa have no tribal identities to allow such peoples a right to claim a history that is legitimately part of them and the same cultural practices handed down to them by their ancestors. Ambiguous/White passing Berbers aren't stripped of history, nor feel ashamed of the cultural practices handed down to them if they're not labeled black. They fall back on the history and culture of their tribes and if at some point the tribes were mostly black so be it.
The other half of the problem is something I already asked: What positive associations to darkness can blacks truly accept? Whites and lighter Asians associate their pale skin with wealth. What is the black response that values the darkest person? "We can stay in the sun melanin rich chocolate" isn't working and we need to accept that.
Ejecting Beyonce, Rihanna or Malcolm X won't solve the matter of making black people value darkness. In the U.S and in other parts of the black world, darker people make fun of people darker than themselves. Darker skin is also ridiculed along gendered lines. Darker men have found an emotional solace in darkness helping them to feel more masculine. This type of solution is only limited to certain parts of the black world however and even where it does exist, it never extends to being of any comfort to darker women.
When blacks want lighter skin but don't have the natural access they want? They artificially make more light brights anyway, destroying the whole point of considering the ejection of lighter people.
...And then once lighter some of them will disrespect those that aren't as light. Nobody wants to be the darkest, especially if a woman. If a foundation for value of darkness was established the darkest woman would be of equal or higher footing than the lightest. Beyonce and Lupita would be equally good choices or Lupitas would always have an easier time. Lighter skin wouldn't be considered for ejection because it'd be of equal or lower placement in the society once darkness established a value blacks could accept.
posted
I think the problem is, historically and contemporaneously, it can be argued that what society considers black has an association with failure, be it militarily, economically, socially and even religiously. And let's be honest, who wants to be on a losing team?
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic