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.
Sometimes yes, sometimes not. "Passing" didn't really start to happen until the early 1900s, when white Anglo-Saxon Protestants in the US began to react overall to the influx of non-WASP immigrants into the country. It that point in time, people defined "race" even down to European countries--they claimed nationality had all the aspects of "race," and even spoke of the "Croatian race" and the "Bavarian race" and such nonsense.
That was a time of great interest in eugenics and controlling the "breeding of undesirables," and along with that came many new laws to prevent the "undesireables"--particularly blacks--from integrating into the WASP pool. That was when most of the anti-miscegenation laws were passed, and almost every state had them at some point in time. In many cases, the laws explicitly forbade any race to mix with blacks in particular.
It was in the early 1900s that the "one drop rule" basically became law.
That might be true today. But it was certainly not true through the 1900s up until the 70s. Remember that prior to 1967, interracial marriage was illegal in nearly half the states, and where it was not illegal, it was discouraged by the harshest social means. A white person who married black essentially lost all "white privileges." Prior to the 70s, light-skinned black people were nearly always a product of light-skinned marrying light-skinned or a roll of the genetic dice (as is my own daughter).
I was an Army brat, so I did know a couple of kids whose black GI fathers who married German women while overseas. Make that a total of two. All the other light-skinned blacks I knew had black parents.
First, I don't know what "bona fide black people" is supposed to mean. I suspect you really mean "bona fide" by your definition, because obviously a whole lot of "bona fide black people" are already willing to accept someone with Rachel's appearance as black. You seem to be at odds with the decision of "bona fide black people" on that matter.
Why can't you accept the fact that black people are willing to accept "mixed" as black?
So you think you're "outing" her? I got news for you: We don't care. As far as we are concerned, she is black. If you have a problem with that, it's your problem, not ours.
And your attitude sounds to most black people like your own attempt to dictate what "black women" should look like, rather than leaving it to them.
Quote:
That might be true today. But it was certainly not true through the 1900s up until the 70s. Remember that prior to 1967, interracial marriage was illegal in nearly half the states, and where it was not illegal, it was discouraged by the harshest social means.
Most racial miscegenation between White women and Black men do not result in marriage anyways, so laws banning interracial marriages back than never stopped White women from getting knocked up by Black guys. That is why most people who are the off spring of a White mother and Black father are/were raised by their single White mothers.
So there were plenty of light skin "Black" people in the 1900s and up until the 1970s who are/were half White.
First of all, I need to make one thing very clear - I really respect your opinions and perspective on racial issues. I suspect that we probably agree more than disagree on the hot topic of race in America.
That being said, I do have some observations and I'm not being argumentative - I really am curious about your take from your perspective, since my perspective as a white, middle aged younger Baby Boomer who grew up always knowing integration apparently differs from yours.
I was also a military brat. Interestingly enough, we knew several interracial couples over the years but like you, I don't recall more than two or three couples who were black/white. I did know many AA couples and families though over the years and we all lived in close proximity to each other and also socialized together.
When I grew up, I married an AA guy I met in college and he went into the Army. I noticed a LOT more biracial and multiracial families at that time. This was in the 1980s and 1990s. So you see, while some of our history is similar, it forks in the road and from my perspective, I saw a lot more racial mixing in the military as time went by - the natural effect of integration, in my opinion.
I pointed out the difference that occurred in the 70s. The Supreme Court struck down the anti-miscegenation laws in only 1967. Remember, most Army posts are in the South. It was illegal for a black soldier to marry a white woman in those states, and if he brought a white wife that he'd married elsewhere, he was risking all their lives. And remember that those laws were usually specific in prohibiting marriages to blacks.
By the 70s, those laws were still on the books (Oklahoma as never actually repealed its anti-miscegenation law because the legislature doesn't want to make that kind of "statement"), but at least the Supreme Court had removed their teeth.
Integration was beginning to take hold, kids in college in the 70s had gotten the vote (the freshman class of 1972--first to vote), being "counter-culture" was the rule of the day, and Jim Seals was singing openly about his black wife.
So the 70s is a "great divide." There was a huge spike of black-white interracial marriages in the 80s to the point that people don't realize how very rare they had been just a few years earlier.
Quote:
I know this question wasn't directed at me, but I'm going to answer it from the perspective of a mother of four biracial kids.
SOME black people accept "mixed" kids as black. Not all. But here's another observation that jumps out at me - some black people insist on labeling people as "mixed" just as some white people do. It's not like all black people are color blind or accepting of anyone who wants to join their ranks, any more than all white people are. There are people in both camps who insist on holding up a color bar and judging people on the color of their skin, their accent, the way they dress, etc. And they're INSISTENT too - you wouldn't believe some of the stories my kids can tell, about white people AND black people trying to shove identities onto them, when all they have wanted to do is be accepted for what they are - biracial Americans. Period. Not "black," and not "white." Not either/or - BOTH. Themselves in other words.
That's what I was saying earlier about even more racial strata being created today.
If you had married a black guy in the 60s or earlier, you would have lost your "white card." You would have been rejected entirely by white society. You would not have been able to live in the still-white neighborhoods, you would not have been able to take your kids to the still-white schools. All of that changed in the 70s.
You were able to still be a white woman when you took your kids to school, and people related to you as a white woman. I'm not criticizing you at all, I'm just pointing out that times changed, and times changed in ways with unpredicted consequences. Twenty years earlier, your life with a black husband would have been incredibly difference from what it was.
That difference makes a difference. It means you can raise your children with a broader set of socially supported aspirations, not only because you have not been raised to think in terms of not having your society's support, but also because your kids--being mixed today--will have more of society's support than even "bona fide black" kids will have today, and certainly more than they would have had a generation ago.
Let's say, for example, your kids get into unwarranted trouble at school and you go to the school to give them a Beverly Goldberg what-for. The school administrators will respond to you in a much different way than they would to my wife--even today--and your kids will benefit from it.
What you and your kids are seeing is a reaction to the fact that--as I said earlier--the race situation is becoming even more stratified, and young "bona fide blacks" are seeing themselves moving even further down the pile, while a lot of us older blacks are more-or-less denying the stratification.
We are still living in an era that is controlled by a generation raised as segregationists. The Rush Limbaughs, the Jesse Jacksons, the Bill O'Reilly's, the Al Sharptons, the Mit Romney's, the John Boehners--all of those who control the media, politics, and industry are all children raised in segregation.
"Raise up a child in the way he should go, and he will not depart from it."
"As the sapling is bent, so grows the tree."
"Rachel Dolezal has been a professor at Eastern since 2007. Dolezal started her teaching career at Howard University in the art department. While at EWU, Dolezal has taught African and African-American art history, World Art with a focus on Native North American art history and, most recently, in the Africana studies program. - See more at: The Easterner : Professor interprets racial differences"
EWU claims that she taught one class in 2011, and another in 2014, that she is not a professor, and that she teaches, or taught, evening continuing education courses. Her dad is white. She wasn't in South Africa. Who in their right mind believed these tall tales? ... a baboon whip?
In her own words:
"Either hate crimes or bullying or acts of violence took place at every location. [In] Montana, we had my dad’s campaign signs graffitied with “******†and had to go around washing that off in the mornings when he was running for county commissioner. - See more at: The Easterner : Professor interprets racial differences
"In South Africa, the kids would beat up mixed kids for having darker siblings, but when my darker brother stepped in, they grabbed sticks and beat him, then threw rocks. We were home-schooled sometimes because of this and other social pressures. - See more at: The Easterner : Professor interprets racial differences
"I got beaten with wooden boards and spoons a lot and had to do manual labor jobs like digging potatoes or pulling thistles and weeds, whereas my siblings, who were darker, … were beaten with a baboon whip … - See more at: The Easterner : Professor interprets racial differences
As a white person, her lies about what was supposedly done to her as a child (an actually WHITE child) at the hands of whites because she is "black" insults me. This is one example of people her deception has hurt - whites. These lies, coming from a woman who's not even black, hurt race relations, not help them. Her lies are hurting an entire race in 2 countries. Not cool. There are people who have genuinely sufferered at the hands of others due to their race. Her claiming she is one of them when she's not even black and this whole charade is rather new insults me and should insult everyone who actually is black and actually has suffered. She's creating problems where there are none, stirring up trouble directed at white people or certain white people, or exacerbating existing issues with her lies. She's hurting, not helping, race relations. It's disgusting. I feel for anyone who is too blind to see it this way, or is hung up on "but but but - it's how she identifies!" and then makes a Caitlyn Jenner comparison.
Well to me it seems that whites are the most critical of this lady. I have no problem with whites helping black folks through organizations like the NAACP. We are an inclusive and loving people! If she lied to hide her whiteness it seems a little strange to me. I can look at her picture and see that she isn't black. Her efforts and dedication should have been enough..
While most people think she looks white, there are many mixed race people who do. You really cannot tell from pictures.
Obviously her parents and brothers say she is white, so she probably is, but...
Here are some celebrities who are mixed who look white.
Rashida Jones is the daughter of Quincy Jones and Peggy Lipton
Heh somebody should really whip her with a baboon whip. Whatever the hell that is. LOL
How could anyone believe those stories? Baboon whip? She's never been to South Africa, and her siblings were not abused. Why would she come up with a story like that? Black people don't tell stories like that, yet this blue eyed blond - pretending to be a black victim of race - had people believing that her parents whipped her siblings with a Baboon whip?
"Rachel Dolezal has been a professor at Eastern since 2007. Dolezal started her teaching career at Howard University in the art department. While at EWU, Dolezal has taught African and African-American art history, World Art with a focus on Native North American art history and, most recently, in the Africana studies program. - See more at: The Easterner : Professor interprets racial differences"
EWU claims that she taught one class in 2011, and another in 2014, that she is not a professor, and that she teaches, or taught, evening continuing education courses. Her dad is white. She wasn't in South Africa. Who in their right mind believed these tall tales? ... a baboon whip?
In her own words:
"Either hate crimes or bullying or acts of violence took place at every location. [In] Montana, we had my dad’s campaign signs graffitied with “******†and had to go around washing that off in the mornings when he was running for county commissioner. - See more at: The Easterner : Professor interprets racial differences
"In South Africa, the kids would beat up mixed kids for having darker siblings, but when my darker brother stepped in, they grabbed sticks and beat him, then threw rocks. We were home-schooled sometimes because of this and other social pressures. - See more at: The Easterner : Professor interprets racial differences
"I got beaten with wooden boards and spoons a lot and had to do manual labor jobs like digging potatoes or pulling thistles and weeds, whereas my siblings, who were darker, … were beaten with a baboon whip … - See more at: The Easterner : Professor interprets racial differences
Okay, she's clearly a weirdo that took this black appropriation culture thing too far.
I didn't even read the articles. Your excerpts were enough.
She and her parents are Caucasian: German, Czech, and perhaps some native American. If anything, she'd be Caucasian Mongoloid mix (since Native Americans fall under that classification) - but that wouldn't make her an innate expert in African Art, hairdos, plight, and victimology.
I want a baboon whip. It sounds pretty cool. I could scare my grandkids with it - and then make them go weed the flower beds and later they might be able to make some money off these stories. In a way, would I be doing them a favor?
When I was a little girl my parents made me pull weeds. At the time I did not realize it was manual labor and I was a victim. Who knew?
She and her parents are Caucasian: German, Czech, and perhaps some native American. If anything, she'd be Caucasian Mongoloid mix (since Native Americans fall under that classification) - but that wouldn't make her an innate expert in African Art, hairdos, plight, and victimology.
I agree that she is probably not anything like the celebrities, but the point I made was that you cannot tell by her looks. You just can't. That is the post I answered.
When I was a little girl my parents made me pull weeds. At the time I did not realize it was manual labor and I was a victim. Who knew?
I laughed when I read that too. Pulling thistles and planting potatoes is what every child, whose family had a garden, had to do. I had to do an hour a day when I was younger, and then 2 hours a day by the time I was 8. It was fun - eating our way through the garden. We had to fill quotas, so sometimes it took longer than two hours. Other times we could convince a neighbour child to help.
She makes normal life sound like abuse.
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.
