Joined: 05 Mar 2006 {Posts: 33 } Location: Colorado
Posted: Sat 01 Apr 2006 00:57 Post subject:
Sweetsister. I like that name and it is true. I'm sorry that anything was said about the post that you sent to me and I am not sure why? I have to reiterate I really appreciated your post. I am sorry that someone made inappropriate statements to you. I don’t understand why people are allowed to stay on here when they say things like that.
If you go there and complete the exercise, you'll later find out how you did. Take a good look at those photos and I think you may have a clearer idea of what my last post is in reference too.
About the racial identity of my son and second son to be, my husband and I want them to be proud of their entire ancestry. We're raising them multiculturaly and bilingualy. They will know there's nothing shameful about being of mixed heritage and proclaiming it. We will continue to expose them to the positive aspects of their respective cultures. PLUS, they will learn of the accomplishments of historical figures who were mixed like them. They will know that they are not a "trend" or "new people" on the human scene. Bi/multiracial people have always existed and have made great contributions not only to American society, but the WORLD.
Thankfully my family has not been plagued with the strife and hatred that can torment and sometimes destroy many "interracial" families. Therefore, since the boys will have direct loving contact with both sides, internalizing a healthy self-concept we'll not be as difficult as it would be say if they we're being raised completely by my side, or my husbands.
When they're older, we'll of course explain to them that there is actually is just ONE HUMAN race that began in Africa. That what we've come to think of as "race" is a combination of noticeably different physical features that developed over thousands of years due to different climates and other factors, AND social dictation.
Oh I could go on, but that's pretty much it. The basics.
I will add, the fact that our son is "racially ambiguous"/stereotypically Latin/Mediterranean looking has definitely influenced our decision in stressing a multicultural/biracial identity over a black one. He clearly "sticks out" in a black crowd and more easily physically "blends in" with other groups.
He looks a lot like Mixedmom's son only a younger version obviously, and with blue eyes.
For parents of biracial children that look black, maybe this whole identification thing is a non issue.
When my kids grow up, they will ultimately make their own decisions as to how they identify. Whatever they choose, whether it's a blended identity, or choosing to identify as just white or black, my husband and I will love them just the same. We may not understand or agree, but we will accept their chosen self-definitions. Just as long as they don't deny where they came from - and are proud of their roots - we're cool.
That sounds very nice and well rounded. Thank you for responding to me.
I only wish that I had that type of support growing up:)
I wonder....from what I have read about racial tranisiton for people of color more specifcally Blacks and People from one Black parent and one White that consider themselves Black they have similar transitions, if they consider themselves Black and I am sure that it is based on looks as well....Well anyway on with my point that I am very interested in how racial transitions will work
in the future with all of these new ideas (As far as America goes).
Posted: Sat 01 Apr 2006 01:38 Post subject: Re: Mulatto Elites versus Blacks
Powell wrote:
I also note that people with no local Negro ancestors are included in that so-called "race" or "ethnic group" on the basis of "inferior black blood."
No. Most usually distinguish between Black/African-Americans and the various black immigrant groups (africans, west-indians, ect)
Quote:
Barack Obama is an example. The family that nutured him was white (AND blood relatives). The people who whine about sacred black family ties spit on such devotion. Why did Hans J. Massaquoi become a "Negro" when he immigrated to the United States when his culture and first language were German? Boris Kodjoe is another example:
Those persons are called Black/African-Americans only because they chose to call themselves that, and insist on being reffered to as such(and I assume for political reasons), even though its technically not correct. I have never personally considered Barack Obama, Colin Powell, or even Louis Farrakhan to be ethnic Black Americans; they simply are not.
Also Boris kodjoe, emphasizes the fact that he is German/Ghanian?, and is usually distinguised from black-Americans.
Sweetsister. I like that name and it is true. I'm sorry that anything was said about the post that you sent to me and I am not sure why? I have to reiterate I really appreciated your post. I am sorry that someone made inappropriate statements to you. I don’t understand why people are allowed to stay on here when they say things like that.
Moreover. Not all Black persons came from Africa, some come from India, Australia, New Guinea, etc. Because "Black" is only a skin color.
There is no Black skin color. Just real dark brown. Black is just a simplification. I guess it was easier to say black than dark brown.
gemini072 wrote:
Indians Australians New Guineans are not considered Black overall. In America we don't consider them Black.
But Australian Aborigines and many New Guineans and very few Indians do consider themselves Black. Not Afrodescent Black, but black nonetheless.
Quote:
Finally, Puerto Ricans, I believe, don't identify with the culture of Black Americans, because they have their own culture: the Hispanic culture of Puerto Rico.
Posted: Sat 01 Apr 2006 02:45 Post subject: Re: Turning My Back
sweetsister wrote:
I believed this down deep in my soul. And then I saw Oprah Winfrey receive her "racial admixture" test results during a documentary on the subject. Turns out she has 100% Sub-Saharan African ancestry! Not a "white drop" anywhere to be found in the brilliant and talented Ms. Winfrey!
89% African. the rest was Native American and East Asian
Posted: Sat 01 Apr 2006 04:26 Post subject: Re: Mulatto Elites versus Blacks
William wrote:
From what I understand, both you and Frank will be attending this year's reunion in Tennessee, correct? I'm leaning heavily towards going, so perhaps I'll see you there. Is there any specific hotel or motel you and Frank stay in?
I am sorry that someone made inappropriate statements to you. I don’t understand why people are allowed to stay on here when they say things like that.
Mjw82704 should have read The Rules before posting. The Rules make clear precisely what behavior will cause a member's posting privilege to be suspended. If anything in The Rules is unclear, please ask your questions in the site management forum.
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 {Posts: 33 } Location: Colorado
Posted: Sat 01 Apr 2006 05:30 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
mjw82704 wrote:
I am sorry that someone made inappropriate statements to you. I don’t understand why people are allowed to stay on here when they say things like that.
Mjw82704 should have read The Rules before posting. The Rules make clear precisely what behavior will cause a member's posting privilege to be suspended. If anything in The Rules is unclear, please ask your questions in the site management forum.
If you go there and complete the exercise, you'll later find out how you did. Take a good look at those photos and I think you may have a clearer idea of what my last post is in reference too.
I just did the exercise. I see what you are saying now. Wow I really like the activities on that site. They are very thought provoking. It is very worth anyone’s while to spend some time on this site. I am going to refer this site to my Equity group peers! Thanks Zsana
I am still confused on the Oprah thing though. I am going to do a little more research on that. I am thinking that what confuses me is that this particular website stated that one person may have a variety of races in their biological background and everyone does so how did Oprah end up pure in one race. I really thought that we were all just mixed in someway, whether it is historically or now? Do you understand what I am asking? Sorry I am a little confused.
There are no races. What there are is markers that only exist in certain populations and the descendants of those populations. Oprah is not only of African Ancestry. She also has Native American and East Asian Ancestry.
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 {Posts: 33 } Location: Colorado
Posted: Sat 01 Apr 2006 07:13 Post subject:
Salsassin wrote:
There are no races. What there are is markers that only exist in certain populations and the descendants of those populations. Oprah is not only of African Ancestry. She also has Native American and East Asian Ancestry.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sat 01 Apr 2006 13:46 Post subject: In Africa
Salsassin wrote:
There are no races. What there are is markers that only exist in certain populations and the descendants of those populations. Oprah is not only of African Ancestry. She also has Native American and East Asian Ancestry.
Hi,
It is curious, but when people with African ancestry finally goes back to visit the land of their ancestors, many times they are shocked. They find out at once they don't look exactly like the locals, anymore.
That has been said by many Black tourists that went to Africa to be with their people, to find the origins, including Alex Haley (Roots' author).
The difference is made by the presence of White and Native ancestry in the Blacks of the Americans, and that shows clearly when they go to Africa.
After all, people of the Americas are very mixed. The melting pot has been a constat in the New World, and it shows.
Not always. Many who visit West Africa reconfirm their racial mythologies because many parts of West Africa are mixed as well. So the visitors see similar faces and assume that their ancestry is 'pure'
It is curious, but when people with African ancestry finally goes back to visit the land of their ancestors, many times they are shocked. They find out at once they don't look exactly like the locals, anymore.
That has been said by many Black tourists that went to Africa to be with their people, to find the origins, including Alex Haley (Roots' author).
The difference is made by the presence of White and Native ancestry in the Blacks of the Americans, and that shows clearly when they go to Africa.
After all, people of the Americas are very mixed. The melting pot has been a constat in the New World, and it shows.
I've heard this point stated over and over again by many people. How different physically most black Americans are from Sub-Saharan Africans. I used to believe this too before moving to the midwest. I'm originally from the San Francisco Bay Area, and there I would have to most certainly agree there are a number of black identifying Americans (with two black identifying parents) with various phenotypes ranging anywhere from the Eddie Murphy/Whoopie Goldberg "type" to the Derek Jeter/Vanessa Williams "type". Plus, phenotypes that are even whiter and in some cases straight up white.
However, since moving here to Cincinnati, It's been quite apparent that there is a VERY LARGE degree of seemingly unmixed 100% (I say seemingly because I know you can't always noticibly detect racial admixture) "pure" Sub-Saharan African descendents here in America. Some look DIRECTLY from the Motherland. Surprisingly, a growing number of Africans are moving to this area and the only way to differentiate these two populations is of course by dress, body language, accents, mannerisms, etc...
Unfortunately - here in Cincinnati anyways - there seems to be almost a direct correlation between completely black (almost stereotypically so) appearance and entrenched poverty.
My question is this. Have there been any studies to anyones knowledge, that have dealt with the location of African-American identified people based on skintone? Are "light-skinned blacks" distributed equally across this country? Or, are there certain areas of the country that are more African ancestried than others? I'm very curious about this.
Here it seems most people (yes there are exceptions and I've seen them) who have light to medium brown complexions and intermediate features are either directly biracial or have a white grandparent. This was certainly NOT the case back home. Of course there's a heck of a lot of 1st generation biracial children in California. But you ALSO have whole generations of brown/tan/light skinned people with similar blended phenotypes and no recent so called "pure" white heritage. Plenty.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sun 02 Apr 2006 16:57 Post subject: Africa
zsana wrote:
...
I've heard this point stated over and over again by many people. How different physically most black Americans are from Sub-Saharan Africans. I used to believe this too before moving to the midwest...
...
However, since moving here to Cincinnati, It's been quite apparent that there is a VERY LARGE degree of seemingly unmixed 100% (I say seemingly because I know you can't always noticibly detect racial admixture) "pure" Sub-Saharan African descendents here in America.
...
Some look DIRECTLY from the Motherland. Surprisingly, a growing number of Africans are moving to this area and the only way to differentiate these two populations is of course by dress, body language, accents, mannerisms, etc...
..But you ALSO have whole generations of brown/tan/light skinned people with similar blended phenotypes and no recent so called "pure" white heritage. Plenty.
...
Does anyone have the answer?
Hi,
Well, all this shows that the African American population is diverse, as one would expect. There are some that have more mixture and the phenotypes show it. There are others that seem more "pure". And finally a third group that look blended for generations.
I don't know what a genetist would say, but for some reason not all mixed populations are the same. In the case of my country (Chile) for example, people -which is mixed European-Native- look quite uniform, perhaps because blending happened so many centuries ago. Most people has dark straigh or brown hair, brown eyes, light but not pink skin, medium height.
In Brazil the mixtures are more varied, and one see all kind of different phenotypes. But in Brazil mixing is more recent. Perhaps it has not reach stability as yet.
Now, Africans of Africa also are mixed, particularly in Egypt, Ethiopia, Somalia and even some coastal regions of Kenya. There Arabs are numerous, so it is not strange some Mulattoes could identify with Africa without problem, because Mulattoes also exist in Africa.
And because some Black Americans feel more identified with Egypt and Northeast Africa, rather than with Western Africa, it is logical those countries fit their expectations. The fact is, the word Mulatto comes from the Arab and means Mixed (the old thesis that that word means mule is absolutely false). And it was applied to Mixed peoples in Africa lots of centuries before the discovery of the Americas.
Now, I was seeing a TV program were Melanie Brown, the "Black" girl of the Spice Girls, showed her experiences back in Western Africa looking for their roots in there. It was a very emotive program, which show ceremonies of reception to the ancient tribes, and the places of shipment of slaves. However, I notice that the lady looked very "western" in comparison with her ancestral people. Western Africans looked uniform between them, and the girl was too much "British" that stood up.
Yes. Melanie look Black in England, but British in Ghana. I believe it is not need to despair. She is not Black OR White. She is both things at once. That is what counts.
The great myth of the majority European ancestry by rape of all Afro Americans, is not supported by records, nor geneics. A substantial amount was rape. But a huge chunk of admixture was not.
Not all of the European bloodlines of AfroAmericans was because of rape. A few were not.
Now, WHO keeps the records to a great deal determines HOW they are kept. Are you so sure that a white man having sex with a black woman, free or slave, would ever, ever be recorded as raping her in records kept by white clerks in the Slave South? I know not!
What do you say to women in a subservient position being pressured into having intercourse with men who had power over them and their families? That pressure is pretty damn high when we're talking about the threat of being sold, or someone you love being sold, or whipped, or sent to the fields. How can genetics determine whether a birth is due to rape or consensual sex? You are throwing around chunk, huge, part, great part, very freely, and I am pretty dubious.
Quote:
Mitochondrial DNA shows that 40% of European Ancestry in the AfroAmerican was from European females. And of marriages, 40% were AfroAmerican men with White women.
I wonder how that could be since these marriages were illegal, not recognized...who performed them? The pastor? The justice of the peace?
Quote:
On out of wedlock relations White women comittere.d many more infanticides because of the risk of prosecution. And still 40% admixture. Even if 1/6 of the White male, Black female relationships were consentual, that is already HALF the European ancestry. Many people seem to forget the Irish were intermixing a lot both during their slavery and their indentured servitude.
Now, if a free, white woman felt so pressured by the laws and mores of the times that many more of them actually killed their own children, how much more pressured were black women and men who were slaves, sharecroppers, tenant farmers, economically disadvanaged, etc?
Quote:
Secondly, many people were freemen in the south so admixture occured there by free will as well.
Many people were freemen?When, during what period?
Hence the huge creole population along with other mixed populations.
Huge Creole population? In what states? How huge? What do you mean by creole?
Quote:
SOme of the rape myths that have become famous were not even rapes. Like Malcolm X's grandmother. It was a consentual relationship in Granada. But it is easier to be accepted if you disavow the White Devil ancestry. The racial stratificcation in this country cut both ways.
Malcolm X? Disavowed the white devil? Disavowed whites, periood? Consensual relationship between his grandmother and a white Grenadian? How many whites resided in Grenada, a BRITISH Colony, at that time, where the BRITISH had all the money, the power, and the control? A British colony with an agricultural economy where a huge labor force of Blacks worked while a tiny group os Colonial authorities ruled? Where one side has all that control, and the other none, can anything ever really be consensual?
yassa wrote:
Otorongo wrote:
The great myth of the majority European ancestry by rape of all Afro Americans, is not supported by records, nor geneics. A substantial amount was rape. But a huge chunk of admixture was not.
Mitochondrial DNA shows that 40% of European Ancestry in the AfroAmerican was from European females. And of marriages, 40% were AfroAmerican men with White women.
On out of wedlock relations White women comittere.d many more infanticides because of the risk of prosecution. And still 40% admixture. Even if 1/6 of the White male, Black female relationships were consentual, that is already HALF the European ancestry. Many people seem to forget the Irish were intermixing a lot both during their slavery and their indentured servitude.
Secondly, many people were freemen in the south so admixture occured there by free will as well. Hence the huge creole population along with other mixed populations. SOme of the rape myths that have become famous were not even rapes. Like Malcolm X's grandmother. It was a consentual relationship in Granada. But it is easier to be accepted if you disavow the White Devil ancestry. The racial stratificcation in this country cut both ways.
Oh goodness, some folk are just incredibly misguided and will say just about anything to justify a point.
First, rapes among african amerian women are not myths. I don't know which study you're quoting. But the largest repository of African genetic information actually says that 30 percent of the patrilineal testing done on African Americans indicates non-African genetic markers. Only 5 percent of matrilineal testing reveals non-African genetic markers.
They attribute the high rate of non-African hits on the patrilineal side to rapes during slavery, etc.
Further, no one is saying that there was never any mixture outside of slave/master rapes. But what you're saying is flat out wrong but it's not surprising considering your apologist and racist take on slavery and other things.
Sure, white women may have screwed a big black dude. But if they became pregnant, they either gave the baby away to a black family or killed it. There was other mixture, but not to the same extent as what the white slave master could do. End the end, anti-miscegenation laws put the kibosh on lots of stuff even among supposedly free blacks.
And, as leslie said, it's ridiculous to say that consensual relationships could occur between black women and white men in master/slave settings. Gee, what are you supposed to say or do when the white man with the power to sell off your children, your sister, your aunt, brother, husband, cousin, comes around and tries to f*ck?
Especially about Kittle's claim of only 5% matrilineal contribution?
There you go again. Manipulating and asserting "facts" incorrectly and weakly. Perhaps this is a strawman?
The study you listed deals with admixture which is not the same as what you asserted earlier - that mitochondrial (matrilineal) dna testing revealed that 40 percent of african americans in fact have non-african hits. you claimed this to disprove the white man rape of black woman theory. rather, you tried to say that white women were in fact the source of our light bright family members.
But the matrinlineal/patrilineal testing done by one of the most significant testing companies shows that 30 percent of their clients have non-african dna markers on the patrilineal side which supports the rape theory. again, just 5 percent of their results from matrilineal testing comes up with non-african markers.
please get your facts straight. and stop trying to mislead people by posting studies that are not germain to or correctly support your original assertion.
and yes, there was some mixing. supposedly there were close to 100,000 mixed kids in the colonies by the mid 1600s. but they were indian and white, black and indian, not just black and white. but soon after, the de jure kibosh was mostly placed on miscegenation and intermarriage.
and, if we are talking about the dna strains of living african americans, then the mixed babies killed by white women don't exactly support your theory that 40 percent of blacks have white female ancestors. we can't know about that genetic contribution because they were unable to spread their genetic material. the supposed infanticides only show that white women got some black up in them at some point.
now, if you want to go back and recant the entire mitochondrial dna crap so that you can pursue the more nebulous admixture b.s. stuff go right ahead.
MtDNA data exist for many of these same groups; estimates of the European-American genetic contribution to the African-American gene pool were 27.5%–33.6% for the Y-STR haplotypes and 9%–15.4% for the mtDNA types.
Quote:
For both the coalescent and genotype assignment methods, the estimated European-American genetic contribution to African-Americans (Table 5) was much higher for the Ychromosome than for mtDNA; ∼27.5%–33.6% of African-American Y-chromosomes were determined to be of European-American ancestry versus only 9.0%–15.4% of African-American mtDNAs.
Quote:
For the mtDNA SSO-types, 635 of the 805 African-Americans (78.9%) were assigned under the stricter requirement, and the resulting estimate of the European-American genetic contribution to African-Americans was 11.3%, which is significantly lower than the estimate of 15.4% on the basis of all individuals, but not significantly different from the estimate of 9.0% on the basis of the coalescent approach.
-Kaiser Seems to say thereis a higher Matrilineal Approach than 5% but still much lower than 40% if you compare it with a 33.6% Y Chromosome That is only a 31.43% . I haven't read Parra yet, but I was wondering if you could help me with direct quotes Frank. I quoted you, but I would like direct quotes from a study showing this gender symmetry you mentioned.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
