Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-26-2015, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Rural Wisconsin
19,804 posts, read 9,357,559 times
Reputation: 38343

Advertisements

Arrest imminent, governor says

The above is the latest report about another shooting of innocent "white" people by someone identified as a "light skinned black male".

Why is it that people who are partly "black" and partly "white" are almost always identified, when race or color of skin is specified, as "black"? (Or at least this has been my observation.) It seems to me that this goes back to the 1800's when in some sections of the U.S., anyone with ANY black ancestry was considered black, period, and therefore often discriminated against.

And now, with so much racism still in existence, it seems that identifying someone who has done something wrong as black just fuels the hatred displayed by racists. This is highly evident on many current threads on City Data.

I think we should stop identifying people by skin color unless it is absolutely necessary -- such as when a description of a missing person is issued -- and then the person should only be described as "light skinned", "darker (or perhaps medium?) skinned", or "dark skinned", with the gender, color of hair and eyes, approximate height and weight, and description of clothing also given.

Of course, if someone wants to self-identify as "black", "white", "Latino", "Vietnamese", or whatever, that is fine -- but I just think that news agencies and law enforcement agencies should not arbitrarily assign any ancestry labels to people.

That is just my opinion, of course. What is yours?

Last edited by katharsis; 08-26-2015 at 09:49 AM..

 
Old 08-26-2015, 09:15 AM
 
5,273 posts, read 14,543,882 times
Reputation: 5881
They are? In my experience they aren't.
 
Old 08-26-2015, 09:21 AM
 
28,666 posts, read 18,784,602 times
Reputation: 30944
That might change when the Boomer generation is dead.

Remember that when Boomers were young (and some not-so-young at all), interracial marriage was illegal in 19 states and discouraged by the strongest social means everywhere it wasn't illegal. That was the case when I first started dating.

The white mothers of what are now called "biracial" children essentially lost their own "white cards." They were largely treated by society as though they were black and their children were treated by society as black. If society could determine that a person was any part black, that person was treated as black. That's what Boomers grew up with as "normal."

Remember that the Boomer Generation still controls American politics, commerce, and media, so don't expect it to change until the Boomer Generation is dead.
 
Old 08-26-2015, 09:28 AM
 
5,273 posts, read 14,543,882 times
Reputation: 5881
Well, I think there is some truth in what you say as to how mulatos were treated. But don't be so sure that everything will chance when the baby boomers all die off.
 
Old 08-26-2015, 02:03 PM
 
Location: Fredericksburg, Va
5,404 posts, read 15,994,442 times
Reputation: 8095
I thought it was because the black gene is dominant.....
 
Old 08-26-2015, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Nashville TN
4,918 posts, read 6,469,326 times
Reputation: 4778
That is true most blacks see Obama as black even thou he is bi racial and half white.
 
Old 08-26-2015, 02:07 PM
 
Location: southern california
61,288 posts, read 87,413,299 times
Reputation: 55562
for the same reason the president is adored and identified as truly "one of us".
we spin it always to our favor.
this is only human nature.
 
Old 08-26-2015, 02:20 PM
 
2,540 posts, read 2,755,972 times
Reputation: 3891
Quote:
Originally Posted by whocares811 View Post
Why is it that people who are partly "black" and partly "white" are almost always identified, when race or color of skin is specified, as "black"? (Or at least this has been my observation.) It seems to me that this goes back to the 1800's when in some sections of the U.S., anyone with ANY black ancestry was considered black, period, and therefore often discriminated against.
Yes but these days it's blacks who have perpetuated the whole "if you're partly black then you are black" thing. Case in point, if a biracial Puerto Rican goes around claiming to be white, blacks will call that person out as black.

But realistically, most black people who are partly white look black, and therefore that's why they are typically referred to as black. It's rare to see a biracial person who looks unmistakably white. It exists, but it's rare. Black genes leave a strong imprint.
 
Old 08-26-2015, 04:19 PM
 
28,666 posts, read 18,784,602 times
Reputation: 30944
Quote:
Originally Posted by UKWildcat1981 View Post
That is true most blacks see Obama as black even thou he is bi racial and half white.
Who sees Obama as white?
 
Old 08-26-2015, 04:28 PM
 
19,027 posts, read 27,592,838 times
Reputation: 20271
Well it likely stems from old definition of a black person. That even if there is a single drop of a black blood in their veins, they are black. I think "negro" was the word used.

Found it. It's "one drop rule'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule
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.



All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top