Alternatives to hypodescent, comparison of racial-purity conceptualizations and an evaluation of American "whiteness".

Starbuck
Advanced Member
Starbuck
Advanced Member
Joined: December 4th, 2008, 5:15 am

April 24th, 2011, 6:13 pm #1

Since it appears that U.S. social norms are circulating with more rapidity at the present, it might serve some benefit to analyze some of them regarding race with an attempt at an objective, dispassionate and possibly critical-constructive approach. As part of this, I will submit the following from Crenshaw et al (1995) and a curious blog entry. I do not intend to restrict the discussion to North American norms regarding racial "maintenance", but would rather intend to evolve a framework for comparing different systems of "race purity" wherever applicable in the the world.


---


American Racial Classification :

Hypodescent :

One way to begin a critique of the American system of racial classification is to ask "Who is black?" This question rarely provokes analysis ; its answer is seen as so self-evident that challenges are novel and noteworthy. Americans no longer have need of a system of judicial screening to decide a person's race ; the rules are simply absorbed without explicity articulation.

- American racial classifications follow two formal rules :
-- the rule of recognition holds that person whose f.e. black-African ancestry is visible is black ;
-- the rule of descent holds that any person with a known trace of f.e. African ancestry is black, notwithstanding that person's visual appearance, or, stated differently, that the offspring of a black and a white is black.

[...]

Alternatives to Hypodescent :

- The American legal system today lacks intermediate or "mixed-race" classifications. While the establishment of self-contained black or white racial categories may seem obvious, an examination of other classification schemes reveals that the American categories are not exhaustive.

Let us posit the two original races - one a "pure black," the other a "pure white." As interracial reproduction occurs, a multiracial society emerges. Four historically documented examples of nonbinary schemes to categorize mixed-race offspring have evolved :

-- mulatto,
-- named fractions,
-- majoritarian, and
-- social continuum.

All of these schemes are logically symmetrical, so, at least in theory, neither "pure race" is privileged over the other. Consider each of the schemes in detail :

-- Mulatto. All mixed offspring are called mulattoes, irrespective of the percentages or fractions of their black or white ancestry,

-- Named fractions. Individuals are assigned labels according to the fractional composition of their racial ancestry. Thus, a mulatto is one-half white and one-half black ; a quadroon is one-fourth black and three-fourths white, a sambo one-fourth white and three-fourths black, etc.

-- Majoritarian. The higher percentage of either white or black ancestry determines the white or black label.

-- Social continuum. This is a variation on the named fractions scheme : labels generally correspond to the proportion of white or black ancestry, but social status is also an important factor in determining which label applies. The result is a much less rigid system of racial classification.

It is worth repeating two observations that apply to all four schemes. First, the use of racial categories presumes that at some time "pure" races existed. Second, because these schemes are symmetrical, nothing in them suggests inequality or subordination between races.

- The hypodescent rule, when combined with color-blind constitutionalism, conveys a complex and powerful ideology that supports racial subordination. Briefly, hypodescent imposes racial subordination through its implied validation of white racial purity. Subordination occurs in the very act of a white person recognizing a f.e. black person's race. Much of constitutional discourse disguises that subordination by treating racial categories as if they were stable and immutable. Finally, the treatment of racial categories as functionally objective devalues the socio-economic and political history of those placed within them. Through this complex process of assertion, disguise, and devaluation, racial categorization based on hypodescent advances white interests.

Assertion of Racial Subordination :

- Equality and the Social Metaphor of Racial Purity :

-- Looking at the lack of symmetry between racial categories provides a means of further understanding hypodescent. Under hypodescent, black parentage is recognized through the generations. The metaphor is one of purity and contamination : white is unblemished and pure, so one drop of ancestral black blood renders one black. Black ancestry is a contaminant that overwhelms white ancestry. Thus, under the American system of racial classification, claiming a white racial identity is a declaration of racial purity and an implicity assertion of racial domination. The symmetry of racial categorization systems other than hypodescent brings a sense of objectivity and neutrality to these schemes, and a comparison of hypodescent to symmetrical systems exposes its nonneutral assumptions.(ibid)

- Subordination in Recognition :

-- Under hypodescent, the moment of racial recognition is the moment in which is reproduced the inherent asymmetry of the metaphor of racial contamination and the implicity impossibility of racial equality. The situation that bares most fully the subordinating aspect of the moment of racial classification arises when a f.e. black person is at first mistaken for white and then recognized as black.

Before the moment of recognition, white acquaintances may let down their guard, betraying attitudes consistent with racial subordination, but which whites have learned to hide in the presence of nonwhites. Their meeting and initial conversation were based on the unsubordinated equality of a white-white relationship, but at the moment of racial recognition the exchange is transformed into a white-black relationship of subordination. In that moment of recognition lies the hidden assertion of white racial purity. The moment of racial recognition is thus characterized by an unconscious assertion of the racial hierarchy implied by hypodescent.


"White" is Undefined, Solve for X
wrote:Problem 1A: Tooki the space martian notices that Americans clamor for unity while desperately clinging to the very socio-political devices built on division which they haven't bothered to define, deconstruct or otherwise have an intelligent conversation about. Therefore, Tooki is inclined to believe that the country is just socially inept and might be better off obliterated. Could this be true? Tooki is a martian of science, so he scribbles down a formula of martian mathematical genius.

white + color = Unity

Substituting x for the unknown of "White" the equation now reads

x = Unity - color

Tooki scratches his head in wonderment. When you subtract the cultural, economic, historical, political, and civil liberties activist footprint of "color" from our national togetherness where does X stand on its own two legs? Tooki is baffled by the faceless concept of X. What could it mean? He lays down is his laser blaster to think...

The bedrock of racial division is the concept of race itself which, beyond being a tool of divisiveness, is a red herring for the "White" majority to avoid defining their cultural grounding. When it is stated or otherwise affirmed that a person is "White," what does that mean? What is the identity that is being engaged or the methodologies being adopted? I'm addressing "Whiteness" specifically because not only is it responsible for engendering the remaining racial colors, it is the only racial demographic that socially brandishes its label while remaining intransigent to defining its cultural relevance or belonging. Asking a White person to explain their identity within "Whiteness" draws almost indefinite silence. On the other hand, ask a person of color to discuss their racial label and you will most likely be met with open ethno-centric discourse. Why the difference? The answer lies in determining, by relatively concrete analytical terms, what comprises the social and cultural definition of "Whiteness."

Interestingly enough, the answer remains elusive even today but has far greater implications than being the punchline for entertaining journalism. With more than half of the American population self-identifying as "White" its imperative that such a concept be scrutinized for its existence as a fabricated construct. Some like to suggest that being "White" is synonymous with being an American but if all "races" can be true Americans, where then does "Whiteness" establish itself as a discreet cultural force?

Of all people, Glenn Beck takes a stab and demonstrates first hand the nature of the crisis.

The following comment thread was formed in response to an article over at The Atlantic which examines the role of "whiteness" in America's shifting ethnic make-up. An excerpt reads:
wrote:The “white identity” he limns on his blog is predicated on the quest for authenticity—usually other people’s authenticity. “As a white person, you’re just desperate to find something else to grab onto. You’re jealous! Pretty much every white person I grew up with wished they’d grown up in, you know, an ethnic home that gave them a second language. White culture is Family Ties and Led Zeppelin and Guns N’ Roses—like, this is white culture. This is all we have.”
As is typical with most race-based articles there is a weathered defense of "White society" that is always focused upon diverting rather than addressing the topic of its cultural identity. An example plays out below.
wrote:Guest 2: It's the white man! That is increasingly becoming the racist mantra of the 21st century.
wrote:Guest 3 in reply to Guest 2: Oddly, white people did not come to America until 1620. It was Columbus ( an Italian) in 1492 in service to Queen Isabella (Spanish) that started all the enslavement and disease among Native Americans. Oddly, it was the Spanish that brought similar problems to the Yucatan and Mexico. Similarly, it was the Spanish that started the Inquisition which ravaged for about 400 years. When will people learn that all races have had problems getting along with everyone? No one race can be blamed for a trait that all humans have demonstrated to possess throughout history. I find now it is an obvious trait of the "ethnic" to summarily blame white people for most of the ills in the world. Oddly, many races other than the white had been enslaving and ruining themselves and other nations when white people were still living in caves. Blaming the white people usually only indicates prejudice rather than any balanced or educated view of the world. Ignorance and anger hurt people, not a particular race as a whole.

A quick look at history will show that every race has been involved in the enslavement and oppression of others. For example; America was first "discovered" by Columbus (an Italian) in service to Queen Isabella (Spain) that first wiped out the Native Americans beginning around the early 1500's through disease and slavery. It was Spain that also began the Inquisition in 1498 and was not abolished until 1834. White people did not even arrive in North America until about 1602 and there were only 50 of them at that time. Anyway, slavery only existed in (white) America 1607-1865 although the Spanish had been enslaving them before the 1500's. This is all minor compared to how long Africans themselves had been warring and enslaving each other almost all the way back to the first pharaohs of Egypt! Besides, if it wasn't for white people (I'm thinking Lincoln off the top of my head), who would have given all Americans of every race the freedoms and equal rights they have today? The answer: white people! because they were only ones running the country at the time. duh! But, I digress. In short, only ignorance and anger oppress and harm others, not a race as a whole.
wrote:Me in reply to Guests 2 & 3: I do not understand the misconstrued exercise of retrospectively applying America's ill conceived notion of whiteness to a time when humans were living in caves. How is that applicable on any level? What the world was doing in ancient Egypt has no bearing on modern "whiteness." There was nothing "white" about cavemen. "Whiteness," specifically, is a modern American non-identity thats is constantly defined by what it is not rather than what it is. Hence,"whiteness" dodges self-awareness by perpetually revising its "legacy" in a very schizophrenic fashion that denounces, yet simultaneously embellishes everything that builds its historical context.
So aside from your Arab-trader argument, would you mind defining whiteness and/or white culture, because it seems inherently in opposition to our greater national identity? Lets exculpate ourselves as Americans because our global social ills are too hopelessly intertwined for us to identify and discuss what exactly defines the "white" American legacy and its "traditions" specifically. What is "white?" "Ethnics" are tired of hearing what "White" people are not on the basis of what every other human being has done throughout history. "Ethnics" would much rather know what "whites" are subscribing to in "whiteness" that they feel is so exclusive to their imagined racial group in the development of THIS country?

It seems that you are defending a construct that exists only to undermine a greater unity you allude to. To claim that one is "White" but against ignorance and oppression is like saying you're a Boston Red Sox fan but hate the concept of baseball. How does "white" exist outside of the historical context of America'a social division? Ultimately, the same question applies to all America's racial "colors" that were invented, stigmatized and exploited for whiteness to even exist. The difference, however, is that behind minority racial colors is an actual culture whether it be Mexican, Native American, Chinese, African, etc. that contributes to a greater American culture that belongs to everyone, but is institutionally controlled by the one racial demographic "bereft of culture." So again, what do you think defines the identity of "whiteness" and more importantly how is it exclusive to being a white person? Im eager to know White America's cultural grounding that allows this concept of "white" to be so separate from all the other colors it created, forcefully applied to and CONTINUES to appropriate from minority peoples. A culture's fabric is formed by how it has come into existence and the methods used to maintain its traditions. These seem to be the very things "white" people cannot take responsibility for or define for themselves, especially without diminishing or misrepresenting the relevance, contributions, and value of minorities that comprise the canvas onto which the illusion of "whiteness" can be projected.
wrote:"I find now it is an obvious trait of the "ethnic" to summarily blame white people for most of the ills in the world...Blaming the white people usually only indicates prejudice rather than any balanced or educated view of the world."
Any balanced or educated view of the world can immediately identify how unbalanced and grossly biased American institutions are in favor of "whiteness," through American education if nothing else. Again, the "blame" of "ethnics" is often an effort to get white people to confront how they define themselves and what contributes to their listless cultural anti-identity in the context of their actions as a racial group. It is a perpetuated resentment toward a demographic of people that champion the "power" of a fabricated racial label whenever it is self-edifying and abandons the responsibility of their "team membership" whenever its not.
wrote:"Ignorance and anger hurt people, not a particular race as a whole."
White is not a race. Its a contrived social concept built on dividing the single human race. If you subscribe to the methodologies that drive that social concept via its label, you are self-imposing the responsibility of what those methodologies bring about. -- The inherent paradox to the modern "White" identity is that racism IS color classism, and color-classism is the sole function of "Whiteness." Without color classism "whiteness" would completely dissolve, and without "Whiteness" all other racial groups would shed their color label and continue enjoying their ethno-cultural identity by their own social terms. Its why African Americans have witnessed generational shifts of racial neologisms with relatively little change to their cultural identity. The changing racial labels are irrelevant to the African-American culture itself and is rather a reaction to the social perceptions of "White" society. The social concept of "Whiteness" was bred to be the antithesis of equality, unity, and social harmony.
http://newdiction.blogspot.com/2010/07/ ... -x_21.html


---


Becoming Metis: The Relationship Between the Sense of Metis Self and Cultural Stories : https://dspace.library.uvic.ca:8443/bit ... sequence=1

Also, for more on the Metis : link
Quote
Like
Share

black man
Advanced Member
black man
Advanced Member
Joined: July 11th, 2005, 8:13 pm

April 24th, 2011, 7:01 pm #2

In contemporary Russian culture "white" identity is somewhat valid, too. I.e., if Anglo-Saxons gave up this label, "whiteness" discourse would nevertheless continue to exist. However, I don't expect "whiteness" to have the same ethno-historical connotations outside of the Anglo-Saxon world as within it.

As one Russian man expressed it in an interview in a documentary film about the Chukchi, Russians associate the colour white with success and virtues (as opposed to the colour black). He explained that it's (in his opinion) natural that doves and Russians are at the top, whereas ravens and Chukchi are at the bottom. (Btw, as far as I remember, at least one Chukchi was present during the interview. So they might be aware of that imagery.)

However, note that "whiteness" in (geographical) Asia is not a matter of social class. The Russian side of the Heilongjiang/Amur border is economically less impressive than the Chinese side.
Quote
Like
Share

Starbuck
Advanced Member
Starbuck
Advanced Member
Joined: December 4th, 2008, 5:15 am

April 24th, 2011, 7:20 pm #3

black man wrote:In contemporary Russian culture "white" identity is somewhat valid, too. I.e., if Anglo-Saxons gave up this label, "whiteness" discourse would nevertheless continue to exist. However, I don't expect "whiteness" to have the same ethno-historical connotations outside of the Anglo-Saxon world as within it.

As one Russian man expressed it in an interview in a documentary film about the Chukchi, Russians associate the colour white with success and virtues (as opposed to the colour black). He explained that it's (in his opinion) natural that doves and Russians are at the top, whereas ravens and Chukchi are at the bottom. (Btw, as far as I remember, at least one Chukchi was present during the interview. So they might be aware of that imagery.)

However, note that "whiteness" in (geographical) Asia is not a matter of social class. The Russian side of the Heilongjiang/Amur border is economically less impressive than the Chinese side.
^

To be white in the U.S. was basically to approve of not merely color-classism but also IMO to approve of a certain "myth of origins", based on a dualism rooted in the slave trade, where white = exploiter and black = exploited. This "myth of origins" participation was formerly extended to nonwhite but nonblack collaborators as well, as a means of ciphoning off the best endowments from any new immigrants so that minority "race-castes" do not gain access. Currently, however, the situation would appear less clear, since economic hardship often causes a subsconscious re-evaluation/contraction of the understanding of white in-group vs out-group individuals. The added factors of somewhat heightened exogamy and expanded census identities is having some moderate effects also.

I recall reading somewhere that Russians never needed to expand beyond Eurasia to i.e. the Americas because a Russian enjoyed enough geospatial/natural-resource endowment to reenact colonialism in an almost ritualistic manner, thus reinforcing boundaries between phenotypes as well as class, whereas the early American tendency toward tellurocratic expansionism was forced to evolve into thalassocratic themes after colonizing the Pacific coast in order to maintain their whiteness in an expansionist framework (although they still enjoyed the ritual of honing a kind of social whiteness by their use of semi-apartheid on American blacks). The Americans seemed to maintain whiteness so rigidly partly because they were subconsciously afraid to draw censure from European popular opinion.
Quote
Like
Share

black man
Advanced Member
black man
Advanced Member
Joined: July 11th, 2005, 8:13 pm

April 24th, 2011, 8:00 pm #4

Starbuck wrote:To be white in the U.S. was basically to approve of not merely color-classism but also IMO to approve of a certain "myth of origins", based on a dualism rooted in the slave trade, where white = exploiter and black = exploited. This "myth of origins" participation was formerly extended to nonwhite but nonblack collaborators as well, as a means of ciphoning off the best endowments from any new immigrants so that minority "race-castes" do not gain access. Currently, however, the situation would appear less clear, since economic hardship often causes a subsconscious re-evaluation/contraction of the understanding of white in-group vs out-group individuals. The added factors of somewhat heightened exogamy and expanded census identities is having some moderate effects also.

I recall reading somewhere that Russians never needed to expand beyond Eurasia to i.e. the Americas because a Russian enjoyed enough geospatial/natural-resource endowment to reenact colonialism in an almost ritualistic manner, thus reinforcing boundaries between phenotypes as well as class, whereas the early American tendency toward tellurocratic expansionism was forced to evolve into thalassocratic themes after colonizing the Pacific coast in order to both maintain their whiteness in an expansionist framework (although they still enjoyed the ritual of honing a kind of social whiteness by their use of semi-apartheid on American blacks). The Americans seemed to maintain whiteness so rigidly partly because they were subconsciously afraid to draw censure from European popular opinion.
But there are certain differences between Russians and Americans:
- the former are monoethnic, the latter not.
- the former couldn't/can't escape from being exploited by their elite, the latter did (speaking of stereotypes, that would be something like "Russian melancholy" vs "American dream").

So I perceive Russian "whiteness" as a "defensive" reaction to depressing circumstances, a symptom of notorious weakness. On the contrary, I'd describe American "whiteness" as something related to 'demonic possession' (at the individual level) and 'collective hysteria' (at the group level). These subjective perceptions shaped by Western media shouldn't belie one fact though: there are definitely violent racist groups in Russia, too. Possibly, they even exceed the American ones concerning numbers of members and brutality. Accordingly, I wouldn't plead for Russian criminals getting milder punishments than American ones if they committed the same crimes.
Quote
Like
Share

Starbuck
Advanced Member
Starbuck
Advanced Member
Joined: December 4th, 2008, 5:15 am

April 24th, 2011, 8:12 pm #5

black man wrote:But there are certain differences between Russians and Americans:
- the former are monoethnic, the latter not.
- the former couldn't/can't escape from being exploited by their elite, the latter did (speaking of stereotypes, that would be something like "Russian melancholy" vs "American dream").

So I perceive Russian "whiteness" as a "defensive" reaction to depressing circumstances, a symptom of notorious weakness. On the contrary, I'd describe American "whiteness" as something related to 'demonic possession' (at the individual level) and 'collective hysteria' (at the group level). These subjective perceptions shaped by Western media shouldn't belie one fact though: there are definitely violent racist groups in Russia, too. Possibly, they even exceed the American ones concerning numbers of members and brutality. Accordingly, I wouldn't plead for Russian criminals getting milder punishments than American ones if they committed the same crimes.
^

While I can conceivably agree (this without fully understanding the Russian paradigm), I eschewed discussing the contemporary issues of whiteness because I still hadn't come to a comprehensive understanding of these issues' ultimate origins.

I do feel, and maybe not wholly incorrectly, that the Americans once very strongly, perhaps more than any other society, worshipped money/consumerism/material gain. And while this is likely an oft-quoted refrain, I feel that it should be pointed out that race and all other social issues in the U.S., particularly the regulation of interpersonal relations within a properly monocultural paradigm, are subordinated toward that end, but in an extreme, perhaps even pathological and self-defeating manner.

Unlike the relatively "upright" ethnogenesis of the Russians, the Americans IMO may have actually attempted to forge a unity of ethnographic dissent based on a "religion" of capitalism.
Quote
Like
Share

Starbuck
Advanced Member
Starbuck
Advanced Member
Joined: December 4th, 2008, 5:15 am

April 25th, 2011, 8:31 am #6

black man wrote:In contemporary Russian culture "white" identity is somewhat valid, too. I.e., if Anglo-Saxons gave up this label, "whiteness" discourse would nevertheless continue to exist. However, I don't expect "whiteness" to have the same ethno-historical connotations outside of the Anglo-Saxon world as within it.
^

Apologies, I meant to address something else in this statement, but got caught up in my loquaciousness. IMO the Russians had undergone complete ethnogenesis and had remained largely stationed demographically in or adjacent to the land of their origin, while the "white" Americans (more accurately called Anglonords rather than Anglo-Saxons, according to Burr) did not ultimately fulfill either of these conditions and would appear to have had a more ad hoc ethnic arrangement. Hence, to me, this disqualifies them somewhat from an even-keeled comparison with f.e. the Russians.

I've long held that the story of American imperialism is that of an inferior kitsch drawing on European precedents without any of their former glory, partly due to the self-denying aspect of it where expansionist motives were veiled in the coded language of "democracy", partly due to the incomplete, tentative nature of American ethnographic identity. This isn't to say that the Americans did not have availed to them much of the apparatus for playing successor to f.e. the British, although perhaps it's debatable whether the Germans would have been more thorough global imperialists had they been, by some change of fate, heirs of the British world-system, since the Germans would seem to have fulfilled the criteria mentioned in my previous paragraph better than the Americans.
Quote
Like
Share

black man
Advanced Member
black man
Advanced Member
Joined: July 11th, 2005, 8:13 pm

September 18th, 2011, 4:46 pm #7

Starbuck wrote:I've long held that the story of American imperialism is that of an inferior kitsch drawing on European precedents without any of their former glory, partly due to the self-denying aspect of it where expansionist motives were veiled in the coded language of "democracy", partly due to the incomplete, tentative nature of American ethnographic identity.
I think, that's all an expression of classism, too. But this classism is not or hardly challenged by any other classisms at a local level for structural reasons. We might call it "legalist classism".

In western Europe democracy and what you'd probably call "kitsch" can be seen as bourgeois 'achievements'. So Europeans almost automatically look down on 'non-achievers' in this sense.

I experienced a couple of IMO interesting encounters with probably native Europeans which made me aware of that different cultures work with different status markers. And that's, I think, probably what causes ethnicity more than anything else. Won't go too much into detail but I'll describe the following experiences in order to illustrate what I mean...

1) More than once I noticed that native females like to verbally threaten or insult strangers in a way similar to how they threaten or insult natives from lower social classes. You'd already transgress invisible boundaries by staying "too long" in certain (public!) places or by doing something they don't want to understand, i.e. extremely subjective matters. Note though that I'd describe these verbally aggressive females as "looking like whores". Actually, I'd associate them with a social stratum lower than mine based on the status markers they themselves chose.

2) One of my relatives and I went to a shop in order to buy something. At one point we started to talk in a way which would be too much straight-forward for bourgeois natives. (Do note that I perceive Western etiquette as an expression of cowardice and effeminacy in such cases. We're in this sense by far more extraverted than them.) One of the shop assistants (or the shop keeper) noticed and unambiguously shook his head. - I just thought: "How he dare to think that we'd stay in his cr*ppy town any longer than necessary or that we'd ever again buy in his lousy shop!" In our culture businessmen aren't considered to be particularly respectable. Rather, we'd expect that they should do what potential clients want. Also, note that the content was not obscene but very trivial, just very unconventional for native minds. Most of them simply don't get our humour. Totally different status markers and etiquettes. Moreover, in our situation status markers are almost futile since we generally don't plan to stay for long. Why show off for someone who doesn't even understand the very basics of our culture!

If anyone from my family was subordinate to a spouse from such a heavily localised milieu hostile to us, natives might consider the offspring to be hyperdescent. But if I acknwoledged that offspring in any way, I'd express that it's IMO hypodescent. In this context I perceive the "multiracial" category as a politically correct compromise which should be avoided because it doesn't help to integrate anyone but only contributes to hybrid individualisms. Note that many hybrids probably notice that, too. So "multiracial" is not necessarily the most popular category even among those who were labelled "multiracial" by their own parents...

In her paper "Will 'multiracial' survive to the next generation?: The racial classification of children of multiracial parents" Bratter compares how parents in interracial marriages classify their children according to the 2000 US American census data. In order to get relatively sure about the results, she excluded Hispanic and adoptive cases as well as families with two "multiracial" parents and families with a child of 10 years of age or older (p. 829).

The largest group in Bratter's study turn out to be families with one white and one non-white parent. In this group 44,4% attributed a "multiracial" identity to their children, 31,9% as "non-white" and 27,1% as "white". In case of backcrossing (children of one white and one "multiracial parent" genealogically more than 50% "white") it's still only 52,7% of the parents who identify their children as "white" and 46,1% identify the children as "multiracial" (p. 833, table 1).

The second-largest group are families with one Asian/Pacific Islander parent. Of these, a very high percentage (54%) identifies the children as "multiracial". The "Asian" category is particularly unpopular with 30,5% of the remainder classifying their children as non-Asian and 15,5% as classifying them as "Asian". Self-identified Asian hybrids relatively rarely cross back in comparison to self-identified black and white hybrids. But the children of those who do so are identified as non-Asians in 3,3% of all cases only. The children identified as "multiracial" are still 56,4% but those identified as "Asian" are significantly more than in the F1 cases (p. 833, table 1).

People with one native American parent are relatively rarely identified as "multiracial" (18,4% in F1), those attributed a native identity being almost 50%. Apparently, most children will accept this categorisation since the number of "multiracial" backcrossers is even lower than in the Asian/Pacific Islander sample. In these cases no less than about 40% of the parents seem to expect the contuinity of "multiracialism" though (p. 833, table 1).

Btw, did you post this topic in this sub-forum or did ren accidentally move it here (to "Gene Expression")?
Quote
Like
Share

Starbuck
Advanced Member
Starbuck
Advanced Member
Joined: December 4th, 2008, 5:15 am

September 18th, 2011, 11:14 pm #8

I would even argue that multiracialism can only be really limited to an urban context. Suppose the world were divested of nation-states and thus decentralized to the level of some scattered, autonomous urban nodes and a constellations of rural communes. Multiracialism as a doctrine couldn't survive long in the latter IMO because arguably rural contexts vs urban contexts favor homogeneity-in-collectivism. Quite the opposite, the city is the perfect environment for every individualism which does not interfere with the function of the urban "machine", and behaviorally the urban context gains its strength from new input, whether domestic or foreign. This is all in theory, of course, and it's my own opinion, here again.

Now, another question is whether or not multiracialist policy can sustain a nation-state which ostensibly contains both urban and rural contexts. I tend to think that this is directly proportional to how urbanized a nation-state's population is, but generally any individualism based on something as fundamental as race is likely to cause some irreconcilable issue later which could dissolve the nation-state. Hence multiracialism could be interpreted as the death-knell of an existing nation-state, while not necessarily denying that a metamorphosis toward a new nation-state (or some unknown replacement?) could happen.

I have a feeling that what you experienced in those anecdotes that you mentioned is indicative of the "generational persuasion" of those native Europeans. What this means is that some of their basic assumptions may be derived from old data and models that simply [not be] applicable today. For example, a 65-year-old man in the USA thinks that he deserves some accolade for merely choosing a wife of a different race than himself. He gloats and says he's no bigot, yet when you see him dealing with a stranger with strange looks [particularly a man], one time he loses his temper and spouts all kinds of obscenities based on assumptions he made about this stranger. But if you confront him, he insists that he's no bigot, and if pressed he says that in his day, such-and-such race wouldn't have even been allowed in his hometown after dusk. His 20-year-old grandson, on the other hand, feels ashamed of him, and thinks nothing of having friends of different races/backgrounds. Either man is doing what seems appropriate for his respective generation's ideals, but that doesn't mean that the old man should be let off the hook, so to speak. And it also means that people on the receiving end of the old man's comparative foolhardiness should not let his inferior mentality corrupt theirs (even as, annoyingly, you see him corrupting the youth).

A criticism that I have about Bratter using the 2000 census is that it was an entirely different world back then. The context has shifted so much in just a few short years that he might need to undertake a revision. I return to my neologism of "generational persuasion" : in the West at least (commenting on what I'm seeing around me) I suspect that there are indeed gaps in pragmatism, permissibility and ethical standards in interpersonal relations divided by groups of age matriculation that might need some academic scrutiny by the likes of Bratter et al.

Prior to 1970, people with the mentality of the 65-year-old man in my earlier example were "normal" because it was an age of luck and expansionism for Europeans and their closer descendants ; thus, for example, what may not have been clear about him and his exogamy was that it was wholly consistent with a motive of conquest (even as it masqueraded as "racial tolerance"). After 1970, however, this mode decayed somewhat and brings us to the state of things presently. People of whatever stripe hold themselves capable of far more autonomy, even in the realm of decentralized racial hierarchies and regional vs global hegemonies, than ever in recent history.
Quote
Like
Share

black man
Advanced Member
black man
Advanced Member
Joined: July 11th, 2005, 8:13 pm

September 19th, 2011, 1:19 am #9

Starbuck wrote:I have a feeling that what you experienced in those anecdotes that you mentioned is indicative of the "generational persuasion" of those native Europeans. What this means is that some of their basic assumptions may be derived from old data and models that simply [not be] applicable today. For example, a 65-year-old man in the USA thinks that he deserves some accolade for merely choosing a wife of a different race than himself. He gloats and says he's no bigot, yet when you see him dealing with a stranger with strange looks [particularly a man], one time he loses his temper and spouts all kinds of obscenities based on assumptions he made about this stranger. But if you confront him, he insists that he's no bigot, and if pressed he says that in his day, such-and-such race wouldn't have even been allowed in his hometown after dusk. His 20-year-old grandson, on the other hand, feels ashamed of him, and thinks nothing of having friends of different races/backgrounds. Either man is doing what seems appropriate for his respective generation's ideals, but that doesn't mean that the old man should be let off the hook, so to speak. And it also means that people on the receiving end of the old man's comparative foolhardiness should not let his inferior mentality corrupt theirs (even as, annoyingly, you see him corrupting the youth).

(...)

Prior to 1970, people with the mentality of the 65-year-old man in my earlier example were "normal" because it was an age of luck and expansionism for Europeans and their closer descendants ; thus, for example, what may not have been clear about him and his exogamy was that it was wholly consistent with a motive of conquest (even as it masqueraded as "racial tolerance"). After 1970, however, this mode decayed somewhat and brings us to the state of things presently. People of whatever stripe hold themselves capable of far more autonomy, even in the realm of decentralized racial hierarchies and regional vs global hegemonies, than ever in recent history.
Thanks for bringing that up.

I was under that impression, too, some time ago. But somehow I happened to forget it. The motif of the white asiaphile(!) as a casual saviour of non-white women, mankind, the world etc was everywhere, in all kinds of fiction from children's television to martial arts movies and the likes. The generation of men who produced such media were probably also into that a sort of fiction concerning Amerindians. When I was a child, Amerindians were actually still depicted like dark-pigmented, beardless Caucasoids. I even came across an anthropology book (still up-to-date in the 1980s and maybe even in the 1990s when I read it) in which native Americans are described as if they were not (or hardly) distinguishable from Caucasoids. And old people spoke of them with a kind of respect. But suddenly, there was an increasing number of films about real Amerindians, and even movies starring Amerindian-looking people became available. And I never again heard anyone talking positively about Amerindians at a local level. It turned out that they were 'too strange' to be talked about in a politically correct manner.

I have to conclude that the West is IMO what East Asia is from a traditional Western POV: a region where people lack innovative spirit, creativity and individuality and where groteque social behaviour is normative. When you live in Europe, 'the world' is presented to you like in a bizarre manga or anime.
Quote
Like
Share