Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I still think that when millennials are finally in control of American politics and industry, they will not institutionalize the racism of their elders, which is why what you say their will be true.
It will happen before then. Us Gen Xer's, while the forgotten generation, are also children of boomers and are also at odds with their views on race.
Why would there even be the consideration to categorize someone who is mixed as white?
My point is that many whites are willing to accept blacks as not just friends or colleagues but cousins. I do not reject people who match my DNA on 23AndMe based on the color of their skin. To me, a cousin is a cousin.
What I am having difficulty understanding as the idea that someone with a mixed racial background is not "mixed" unless it is close to a 50/50 admixture. Someone who is 95% European and 5% African is just as mixed as someone who is 95% African and 5% European. The mixture is there. Each is "mixed." The culture you identify with has nothing to do with it.
Someone who is 95% European and 5% African is just as mixed as someone who is 95% African and 5% European. The mixture is there. Each is "mixed." The culture you identify with has nothing to do with it.
Then in your world virtually every one is mixed, except for people who live in very isolated regions.
Except in the real world it usually doesn't work that way.
It is my hope that more people will accept that in the US racial mixing has been going on for a long time -- some involuntary, but not all. In order for that to translate into less prejudicial treatment, though, people of all races have to accept the admixture. The increasing interest in discovering one's roots through DNA is going to lead to more people finding out about admixtures that vary from small amounts to more substantial.
Let me cite an example about so called racial mixing, using the UK as an example, as it is one of the predominantly white societies with the highest level of interracial mixing.
Two groups are polar opposites.
British blacks of Caribbean descent are intermarried/cohabitating with whites at a 50% level (males) and 35% level (females). Of the one million people who self identify as having some Caribbean heritage 40% are the offspring of one white parent. However when one examines the socio economic status of those people of mixed Caribbean and white ancestry they parallel that of those of full Caribbean descent.
So what's happening doesn't seem to be a wonderful world of assimilation and acceptance by the English society at large, but merely that Caribbean origin British blacks mate with whites at their socio- economic level.....in other words mainly working or the lower rungs of the middle class. Just about all the ills of African Americans is replicated within this group. Indeed the mass urban riots of a few years ago occurred because a mixed person of Caribbean black/English white ancestry was shot by the police.
Then we have the British Indians. Very low indices of intermarriage, indeed equivalent to black Americans. Yet this group is now without a doubt ahead of even the native English white population, regardless of the measures of socio economic status that you select. This group is way more socio economically integrated into the British mainstream, even though it doesn't intermarry/cohabitate with them at high rates.
So why is a discussion of racial mixing important? What societal purpose does it have?
Two people should be able to marry/cohabitate with who ever they wish, and their union and their offspring should be respected. Those who prefer to stick within their own group aren't "worse" than those who don't, provided that they engage in other activities that will allow integration into the mainstream.
In the case of the British Indian, education, a focus on the more rigorous college degrees, and avoidance of the local white British working class, are the strategies that they have used.
Unfortunately many British Caribbean blacks have become integrated into the lower edge of the native white working class, with all its pathologies. So their offspring seem to face all the challenges that they do, despite having a white parent who ought to have more access to opportunity and an ability to transmit it to them. More than a few have English mothers with a bunch of kids who look like the rainbow coalition, so are unable to provide them with family stability, as they often have lost touch with their fathers.
So I don't know why your emphasis on mixing. That is a personal decision made by the people involved, and what they do isn't better or worse than what others decide to do.
In the case of the British Indian, education, a focus on the more rigorous college degrees, and avoidance of the local white British working class, are the strategies that they have used.
Unfortunately many British Caribbean blacks have become integrated into the lower edge if the native white working class, with all its pathologies. So their offspring seem to face all the challenges that they do, despite having a white parent who ought to have more access to opportunity and an ability o transmit it to them. More than a few have English mothers with a bunch of kids who look like the rainbow coalition, so are unable to provide them with family stability, as they often have lost touch with their fathers.
That's pretty much what has been happening in the US, since racial intermarriage became more common after it was made legal across the nation in 1967.
Then in your world virtually every one is mixed, except for people who live in very isolated regions.
Except in the real world it usually doesn't work that way.
The admixture is a fact. It is measurable. Quantifiable. Yes, virtually everyone is "mixed". I personally have a very small, but intriguing, DNA admixture, the source of which I would be happy to discover.
To me it makes no sense to say you are only "mixed" if you have only a specific ratio of admixture. What culture you personally identify with is up to you.
The sooner we all realize that prejudice against the minority part of our admixture is a form of self hatred, the better.
That does not mean we have to love all our ancestors. I have a few in my tree who were not very nice people, including one who was hanged for killing his son-in-law. He was apparently a nasty old man. However, without him I would not be here.
Let me cite an example about so called racial mixing, using the UK as an example, as it is one of the predominantly white societies with the highest level of interracial mixing.
Two groups are polar opposites.
British blacks of Caribbean descent are intermarried/cohabitating with whites at a 50% level (males) and 35% level (females). Of the one million people who self identify as having some Caribbean heritage 40% are the offspring of one white parent. However when one examines the socio economic status of those people of mixed Caribbean and white ancestry they parallel that of those of full Caribbean descent.
So what's happening doesn't seem to be a wonderful world of assimilation and acceptance by the English society at large, but merely that Caribbean origin British blacks mate with whites at their socio- economic level.....in other words mainly working or the lower rungs of the middle class. Just about all the ills of African Americans is replicated within this group. Indeed the mass urban riots of a few years ago occurred because a mixed person of Caribbean black/English white ancestry was shot by the police.
Then we have the British Indians. Very low indices of intermarriage, indeed equivalent to black Americans. Yet this group is now without a doubt ahead of even the native English white population, regardless of the measures of socio economic status that you select. This group is way more socio economically integrated into the British mainstream, even though it doesn't intermarry/cohabitate with them at high rates.
So why is a discussion of racial mixing important? What societal purpose does it have?
Two people should be able to marry/cohabitate with who ever they wish, and their union and their offspring should be respected. Those who prefer to stick within their own group aren't "worse" than those who don't, provided that they engage in other activities that will allow integration into the mainstream.
In the case of the British Indian, education, a focus on the more rigorous college degrees, and avoidance of the local white British working class, are the strategies that they have used.
Unfortunately many British Caribbean blacks have become integrated into the lower edge of the native white working class, with all its pathologies. So their offspring seem to face all the challenges that they do, despite having a white parent who ought to have more access to opportunity and an ability to transmit it to them. More than a few have English mothers with a bunch of kids who look like the rainbow coalition, so are unable to provide them with family stability, as they often have lost touch with their fathers.
So I don't know why your emphasis on mixing. That is a personal decision made by the people involved, and what they do isn't better or worse than what others decide to do.
This just sounds like people marrying people of the same socioeconomic class in an environment in which merely being white does not convey an advantage. Dysfunctional families happen in all racial groups. That has more to do with attitudes toward responsibility than it does race.
I am not sure what you mean by my "emphasis on mixing." I am just interested in the concept that you are only "mixed" if you have a certain percentage of admixture.
The admixture is a fact. It is measurable. Quantifiable. Yes, virtually everyone is "mixed". I personally have a very small, but intriguing, DNA admixture, the source of which I would be happy to discover.
To me it makes no sense to say you are only "mixed" if you have only a specific ratio of admixture. What culture you personally identify with is up to you.
The sooner we all realize that prejudice against the minority part of our admixture is a form of self hatred, the better.
That does not mean we have to love all our ancestors. I have a few in my tree who were not very nice people, including one who was hanged for killing his son-in-law. He was apparently a nasty old man. However, without him I would not be here.
Brazil is a very mixed country, and yet there is definite bias against those who look less mixed, or less European. So I am still not sure what your point is.
This just sounds like people marrying people of the same socioeconomic class in an environment in which merely being white does not convey an advantage. Dysfunctional families happen in all racial groups. That has more to do with attitudes toward responsibility than it does race.
I am not sure what you mean by my "emphasis on mixing." I am just interested in the concept that you are only "mixed" if you have a certain percentage of admixture.
My point is that the higher levels of intermarriage/cohabitation by British Caribbean blacks hasnt result in higher acceptance by the British mainstream, as measured by their mediocre SES performance. We see the opposite with British Indians.
Why this endless discussion about mixing I wonder?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
