What is hypodescent? Why is it important?
Hypodescent is the rule that automatically assigns the children of a mixed union or mating between members of different socioeconomic groups in the less privileged group. This is important to understand because it is how race is determined in the U.S. Because of hypodescent, race in the U.S. is fixed at birth and does not change. Also, due to the way hypodescent operates, the number of people classified as "black" or "Native American" is growing faster than the number of people classified as "white" because in order to be classified as white, both of your parents have to be "white." It is important to understand that this is not the only way in which race is assigned. Different cultures determine race in different manners.

Are all systems of human racial classification around the world the same?
No, because human racial classification is a cultural construction; there is no universal system of classifying race. Rather, each culture has its own way of determining race. Some systems are very similar, like the racial classification systems used in the U.S. and Japan, while others are different, like the one used in Brazil. For example, concepts of race in the U.S. and Japan are very rigid and fixed from birth. In contrast, race in Brazil is fluid and flexible. Race in Brazil is determined in part by an individual's parents, in part by an individual's phenotype, and in part by an individual's socioeconomic status. As result, a person's race in Brazil can change as they become wealthier or poorer. In the U.S. or Japan, a person's socioeconomic status does not affect their race.

Why is it important to understand that social race is a cultural construction?
It is important to understand that the distinctions made in the textbook between social and biological race are not just to make you have to learn two more definitions. Since human racial classifications have no basis in biology, they must be cultural constructions. By definition, cultural constructions are arbitrary in that they are created and maintained by each culture. As a result, cultural constructions are not fixed forever; rather they are dynamic and change over time and through space. For instance, are the notions of race found in the U.S. today the same as those that were in use 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 200 years ago? Are the notions of race found in urban parts of the U.S. today identical to the notions of race found in more rural parts of the U.S.? These differences exist because race is a cultural construct. The importance lies in the fact that as a cultural construction, race changes and can be changed. People actively use race and people can actively change how race is perceived. What role did Martin Luther King Jr. play in changing American attitudes about race? What role did Jesse Owens and Toni Morrison play in changing American attitudes about race?

Why is there always so much racial confusion with Prince and his proteges?! This is insane

***I remember in the early 80s,Vanity was pissed at a newspaper article that said she is "Eurasian".

"Bull",she replied."My father is black and my mother is Polish Jewish".

***there were the rumors about Prince being half-Italian and several years ago,some were saying that he is actually part Filipino

***I remember a white friend of mine telling me (with a straight face) "I can't believe how many people assume that Prince is black,just because of the way he dances" I was so shocked that I didn't even bother to dispute that,lol.

***Jill Jones being considered white when in reality,she is half-black and Italian.

***people not knowing the true racial identity of Sheila E,Susan Moonsie,Mani,and numerous other girlfriends and proteges.

It's almost as if Prince purposely finds people with questionable racial identities,just so he can confuse the public over and over,lol.

Efan said:

A serious question: Why is the "one-drop rule" racist but "one drop of anything else = NOT black" not racist?

I'd love know that myself, It's all quite arbitrary, no?

Given the fact that people are arguing that it's a social construct with no scientific basis, to me that says that it is even moreso an individual "choice" and should be respected as such whether it's Sheila, Misty or Tigger Woods.

It's funny that you never see this type of raucus debate, nitpicking, pontificating, microscopic scrunity about percentages and such unless we're talking about black folks.

SoulAlive said:

Why is there always so much racial confusion with Prince and his proteges?! This is insane

***I remember in the early 80s,Vanity was pissed at a newspaper article that said she is "Eurasian".

"Bull",she replied."My father is black and my mother is Polish Jewish".

***there were the rumors about Prince being half-Italian and several years ago,some were saying that he is actually part Filipino

***I remember a white friend of mine telling me (with a straight face) "I can't believe how many people assume that Prince is black,just because of the way he dances" I was so shocked that I didn't even bother to dispute that,lol.

***Jill Jones being considered white when in reality,she is half-black and Italian.

***people not knowing the true racial identity of Sheila E,Susan Moonsie,Mani,and numerous other girlfriends and proteges.

It's almost as if Prince purposely finds people with questionable racial identities,just so he can confuse the public over and over,lol.

I have yet to see all of this garment rending angst over the likes of Carmen Electra or Kim Bassinger...hmmm.

babynoz said:

SoulAlive said:

Why is there always so much racial confusion with Prince and his proteges?! This is insane

***I remember in the early 80s,Vanity was pissed at a newspaper article that said she is "Eurasian".

"Bull",she replied."My father is black and my mother is Polish Jewish".

***there were the rumors about Prince being half-Italian and several years ago,some were saying that he is actually part Filipino

***I remember a white friend of mine telling me (with a straight face) "I can't believe how many people assume that Prince is black,just because of the way he dances" I was so shocked that I didn't even bother to dispute that,lol.

***Jill Jones being considered white when in reality,she is half-black and Italian.

***people not knowing the true racial identity of Sheila E,Susan Moonsie,Mani,and numerous other girlfriends and proteges.

It's almost as if Prince purposely finds people with questionable racial identities,just so he can confuse the public over and over,lol.

I have yet to see all of this garment rending angst over the likes of Carmen Electra or Kim Bassinger...hmmm.

Carmen is actually half black and half Asian Kim is a quarter Italian,a quarter Samoan,and white.

Just kidding!!

Efan said:

A serious question: Why is the "one-drop rule" racist but "one drop of anything else = NOT black" not racist?

I don't understand your question but I THINK your dealing with hypodescent

In parts of Northern Africa, it was used but in the reverse,

the 1 Drop Rule was not some floating in the air concept. It was RULE on the books, it went hand in hand with miscogenation(race mixing). In it's origins it was to keep whites in their place by not mixing with Mulattoes or Blacks. These rules became very strong after Emancipation(the freeing of slaves...not Prince's album lol) This is also when we see the rise of KKK. The not only terrorized the 'colored' populations but also sympathetic whites.

Because whites were free and 'negroes & mulattoes' were mostly slaves, and weren't supposed to be able to read or intelligent enough to know better. The laws were originally pointed at the White citizens. Fining wipping and imprisonment were penalties.

miscogenation:a mixture of races; especially : marriage, cohabitation, or sexual intercourse between a white person and a member of another race

The problem Efan is that the Black political powers have taken this rule as a fact for the Black community for the sake of numbers and a few other things. So in a sense the Black Leaders are shaking hands with their "White Supremist" oppressors as for as these things are concerned.

Native-Americans had no one drop applied to them because it was expected that genocide would wipe them out. Native-Americans were not expected to be around long. They were herded onto Reservations or out West and that mostly cut any further interactions. Those still apart of 'mainstream' society usually mixed in with Blacks or Whites.

By the time Asian groups started immigrating to the US things were a lot different. And most Asians took residence in California which was pretty progressive as far as race was concerned even for Black-Americans.

There is something called 'ethnic trumping' which is not a LAW, but more a social inter-cultural thing that will happen when a person of 1 ethnic group mixing with another. Italian-American tend to do this. A person can be 1/2 Italian 1/2 English and the person may still see themselves as Italian, a lot of times other will too especially if they have the Italian last name. Also because even in the US the culture is very strong and the community still very interconnected.

What is hypodescent? Why is it important?
Hypodescent is the rule that automatically assigns the children of a mixed union or mating between members of different socioeconomic groups in the less privileged group. This is important to understand because it is how race is determined in the U.S. Because of hypodescent, race in the U.S. is fixed at birth and does not change. Also, due to the way hypodescent operates, the number of people classified as "black" or "Native American" is growing faster than the number of people classified as "white" because in order to be classified as white, both of your parents have to be "white." It is important to understand that this is not the only way in which race is assigned. Different cultures determine race in different manners.

[Edited 2/18/11 7:16am]

SoulAlive said:

Why is there always so much racial confusion with Prince and his proteges?! This is insane

***I remember in the early 80s,Vanity was pissed at a newspaper article that said she is "Eurasian".

"Bull",she replied."My father is black and my mother is Polish Jewish".

***there were the rumors about Prince being half-Italian and several years ago,some were saying that he is actually part Filipino

***I remember a white friend of mine telling me (with a straight face) "I can't believe how many people assume that Prince is black,just because of the way he dances" I was so shocked that I didn't even bother to dispute that,lol.

***Jill Jones being considered white when in reality,she is half-black and Italian.

***people not knowing the true racial identity of Sheila E,Susan Moonsie,Mani,and numerous other girlfriends and proteges.

It's almost as if Prince purposely finds people with questionable racial identities,just so he can confuse the public over and over,lol.

I believe that was Prince's hopes and ideals -even still at times.

SoulAlive said:

babynoz said:

I have yet to see all of this garment rending angst over the likes of Carmen Electra or Kim Bassinger...hmmm.

Carmen is actually half black and half Asian Kim is a quarter Italian,a quarter Samoan,and white.

Just kidding!!

lol actually Carmen Electra is part Native-American: Cherokee German Irish

SoulAlive said:

babynoz said:

I have yet to see all of this garment rending angst over the likes of Carmen Electra or Kim Bassinger...hmmm.

Carmen is actually half black and half Asian Kim is a quarter Italian,a quarter Samoan,and white.

Just kidding!!

OldFriends4Sale said:

catpark said:

That mediatakeout artictle is weird and uninformed.

U dont have to have both of ur parents to be black to be a sista, Anyway theres no such thing as a persons lineage being 100% African in the America/Carribean/European/UK, that is extremely rare and probably non existent.

Now going by her parents and her current heritage, Sheila is a sista and shes mixed race too, shes want ever she is. From what ive seen of her past she seems to celebrate all her cultures which is great.

Saying shes not a sista(hate that word ) is extremely absurd.

Not completely ture, but I understand where your coming from. Even in America, there are large groups of varying ethnic groups that still only intermingle with people just like them. For various reason. There are still WASP communities that only marry intermingle with other White Anglo Saxon Protestants. There are town and villages all over the country that don't get much intermingling from other ethnic groups.

There are also varying sized groups of people in America for different reasons who have only populated with other African only genetic people. Some place in America are still very much racially defined "outright" where you don't cross into another part of town.

Also in Europe most not all but most African immigrants are very recent and still only mingle with their ethnic/cultural groups. Those who may mix with the particular Euro ethnic group tend to have moved outside of their 'cultural' community

I was talking about people of that have descended from slavery not African immigrants. Also majority of born and bred Africans don't see black Americans and Afro Caribbeans(including UK)as Africans anyway.

As Bob Marley said:

I don't have prejudice against meself. My father was a white and my mother was black. Them call me half-caste or whatever. Me don't dip on nobody's side. Me don't dip on the black man's side nor the white man's side. Me dip on God's side, the one who create me and cause me to come from black and white.

Bob knows best

babynoz said:

Efan said:

A serious question: Why is the "one-drop rule" racist but "one drop of anything else = NOT black" not racist?

I'd love know that myself, It's all quite arbitrary, no?

Given the fact that people are arguing that it's a social construct with no scientific basis, to me that says that it is even moreso an individual "choice" and should be respected as such whether it's Sheila, Misty or Tigger Woods.

It's funny that you never see this type of raucus debate, nitpicking, pontificating, microscopic scrunity about percentages and such unless we're talking about black folks.

Your right Babynoz, it is an individual choice, I totally accept and back Nicole Ritchie for her identification as Black. As well as Halley Berry.

And I also totally back Mariah Carey Tiger Woods for identifying as Multiracial

I totally back Kimora Lee for identifying as biracial 100% Black 100% Asian as she puts it.

She was interviewed in A(sia) magazine some years ago and you can tell she is very much both and it's integrated.

catpark said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Not completely ture, but I understand where your coming from. Even in America, there are large groups of varying ethnic groups that still only intermingle with people just like them. For various reason. There are still WASP communities that only marry intermingle with other White Anglo Saxon Protestants. There are town and villages all over the country that don't get much intermingling from other ethnic groups.

There are also varying sized groups of people in America for different reasons who have only populated with other African only genetic people. Some place in America are still very much racially defined "outright" where you don't cross into another part of town.

Also in Europe most not all but most African immigrants are very recent and still only mingle with their ethnic/cultural groups. Those who may mix with the particular Euro ethnic group tend to have moved outside of their 'cultural' community

I was talking about people of that have descended from slavery not African immigrants. Also majority of born and bred Africans don't see black Americans and Afro Caribbeans(including UK)as Africans anyway.

As Bob Marley said:

I don't have prejudice against meself. My father was a white and my mother was black. Them call me half-caste or whatever. Me don't dip on nobody's side. Me don't dip on the black man's side nor the white man's side. Me dip on God's side, the one who create me and cause me to come from black and white.

Bob knows best

I totally with you Catpark. I've stated the same about how Africans see those not African(continent) born

LOL Yes Bob M has it right, and I hope those who saying believe in the 1drop rule read those lyrics there

DaphneLovesPR1NCE said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

THE ORIGINAL EGYPTIANS WERE BLACK. THE REAL NAME OF EGYPT WAS KEMET, WHICH MEANS THE LAND OF THE BLACK AND BURNT SKINNED PEOPLE. STUDY THEIR ART, PAINTINGS AND THE KEBRANEGAST BEFORE THEY WERE INVADED BY THE GREEKS. THE REASON THAT THEY ARE LIGHT SKINNED TODAY IS BECAUSE THE GREEKS AND THE ROMANS INVADED THEIR LAND. THEY ENSLAVED THE MEN AND RAPED THE WOMEN TO PRODUCE THE LIGHTER HUE EGYPTIAN TODAY.

No a lot of the 'lighter skinned' Egyptians as you call it are not even originally Egyptian they are Arabs/Middle Easterns.

Greeks & Romans INVADED and RAPED the NUBIANs of Egypt?? Are you kidding me, and you say I know nothing of African history?? Egypt was the center of civilization in that part of the world (the Orient had their vast wisdom and civilization too) so Egypt wasn't IT.

Greeks, Middle Easterns, Nubians, Ethiopians, Hebrews traded with Egypt. Greeks Middle Easterns, Nubians, Ethiopians & Hebrews were enslaved by Egyptians. Your racist mind is warped to reverse the story lol

In trading and commerce of course ethnic mixing takes place because there was no problem. When Rome became a world power the same thing happened. Roman had Egypt as an ally at times,, Not enslaved. Cleopatra was a Greek, Mark Athony didn't enslave Egypt...

your way off in your history son

Thank you! Someone who actually listened during history class. That's just like some of the African people have "slanted eyes." That comes from the invasion of the asians invading. Same thing happened to the native people of the americas. There are some from latin/south america b/c of the AFRICAN slaves being brought there that mixed with the locals. Latin/South America has people of so many mixtures because of this, but there are some that identify with the natives. Black people need to get out of the mind set that "everyone is black b/c we all come from Africa." That is stupid! We are all different, that is beautiful. I guess my adopted korean cousin should call herself "black" too, afterall, the black community has embraced her and she is being raised by a black parent. Geesh! The Black community can't claim everyone! Others should be allowed to show pride in who they are! If you have a white/other parent, you aren't black, you are biracial/multiracial and should be able to embrace all parts of your heritage and STILL be loved by the black community!

Get your facts straight...the Africans did not get their "slanted" eyes from Asians. Do some "real" research. Those shaped eyes came from ancient Africans. The Sans Bushmen are the oldest living descendants of ancient humans alive today, and hold the facial features of the entire human race. Don't believe me, do some reading and research. You're talking out of your ass on some of the information you’re posting, and making generalized statements that the "black community wants to claim everyone" As a Black American, I have absolutely no desire to claim anyone's racial background/heritage as my own. Who are you to speak for me or any Black American, when you're talking this bs?

1) Black Americans, as well as those from the Caribbean are technically mulitiracial - don't believe me? Yeah, that’s right…surprised, coming from a person who defines herself as a “Black American” because I can? Run a DNA tests on all of us and it will prove my point. Some of you need to relax, one defining themselves as “Black American”, for example, does not necessarily mean they discount “all of who they may be” on a racial/ethnic basis. With you, being a person of “color”, and others like yourself on this board, dividing “lighter skinned blacks vs dark skinned blacks” and placing them in separate boxes and choosing who is Black/not black enough, based on their skin tones, then accusing the entire black community of “wanting to claim others” bs , yet at the same time, trying to tell Blacks, as a whole, how they should should define themselves, according to your bs, well you’re doing just as much damage as former slaveholders, and those that designed the “race/class systems” So speak for yourself, and stop generalizing all Blacks as though they are from one sound mind. We’re not.

2) Secondly, speaking for myself, as a Black-American woman, the term "Black" for me, does not necessarily reference someone's skin tone or defining onself as "solely" African, as many clueless folks thinks it does, especially when most Black Americans, including myself, haven't done a geneaology search to know which African, ethnic group they are connected to. One thing though, at least some of us are aware that we do have ancestors that were connected to an African, ethnic group, even if most Black Americans today, will probably never know which African, ethnic group it was, and will never practice the culture of those specific groups, because they’ve been too far removed from them, mostly due to the transatlantic slave trade era.

3) No need to jump all over those of us here who are comfortable with defining ourselves as Black Americans, especially when many of us who are well-informed about the history of the human species, are at comfort with who we are. On that note, have a nice day, and please take the time to do some real research before spouting off the bs you’re spreading on this thread.

2elijah said:

DaphneLovesPR1NCE said:

Thank you! Someone who actually listened during history class. That's just like some of the African people have "slanted eyes." That comes from the invasion of the asians invading. Same thing happened to the native people of the americas. There are some from latin/south america b/c of the AFRICAN slaves being brought there that mixed with the locals. Latin/South America has people of so many mixtures because of this, but there are some that identify with the natives. Black people need to get out of the mind set that "everyone is black b/c we all come from Africa." That is stupid! We are all different, that is beautiful. I guess my adopted korean cousin should call herself "black" too, afterall, the black community has embraced her and she is being raised by a black parent. Geesh! The Black community can't claim everyone! Others should be allowed to show pride in who they are! If you have a white/other parent, you aren't black, you are biracial/multiracial and should be able to embrace all parts of your heritage and STILL be loved by the black community!

Get your facts straight...the Africans did not get their "slanted" eyes from Asians. Do some "real" research. Those shaped eyes came from ancient Africans. The Sans Bushmen are the oldest living descendants of ancient humans alive today, and hold the facial features of the entire human race. Don't believe me, do some reading and research. You're talking out of your ass on some of the information you’re posting, and making generalized statements that the "black community wants to claim everyone" As a Black American, I have absolutely no desire to claim anyone's racial background/heritage as my own. Who are you to speak for me or any Black American, when you're talking this bs?

1) Black Americans, as well as those from the Caribbean are technically mulitiracial - don't believe me? Yeah, that’s right…surprised, coming from a person who defines herself as a “Black American” because I can? Run a DNA tests on all of us and it will prove my point. Some of you need to relax, one defining themselves as “Black American”, for example, does not necessarily mean they discount “all of who they may be” on a racial/ethnic basis. With you, being a person of “color”, and others like yourself on this board, dividing “lighter skinned blacks vs dark skinned blacks” and placing them in separate boxes and choosing who is Black/not black enough, based on their skin tones, then accusing the entire black community of “wanting to claim others” bs , yet at the same time, trying to tell Blacks, as a whole, how they should should define themselves, according to your bs, well you’re doing just as much damage as former slaveholders, and those that designed the “race/class systems” So speak for yourself, and stop generalizing all Blacks as though they are from one sound mind. We’re not.

2) Secondly, speaking for myself, as a Black-American woman, the term "Black" for me, does not necessarily reference someone's skin tone or defining onself as "solely" African, as many clueless folks thinks it does, especially when most Black Americans, including myself, haven't done a geneaology search to know which African, ethnic group they are connected to. One thing though, at least some of us are aware that we do have ancestors that were connected to an African, ethnic group, even if most Black Americans today, will probably never know which African, ethnic group it was, and will never practice the culture of those specific groups, because they’ve been too far removed from them, mostly due to the transatlantic slave trade era.

3) No need to jump all over those of us here who are comfortable with defining ourselves as Black Americans, especially when many of us who are well-informed about the history of the human species, are at comfort with who we are. On that note, have a nice day, and please take the time to do some real research before spouting off the bs you’re spreading on this thread.

Daphne will have to clear that up, but I believe she is making reference to the false idea that Africans got their slanted eyes because Asians invade Africa... It was just worded/read differently. I don't think she is saying Asians invaded Africa, she is commenting on the idea that "Romans & Greeks" invaded enslaved and raped Egyptians and that's why they are lighter skinned. <- that is the incorrect information... and I believe U agreed with Jasons post earlier

OldFriends4Sale said:

Efan said:

A serious question: Why is the "one-drop rule" racist but "one drop of anything else = NOT black" not racist?

I don't understand your question but I THINK your dealing with hypodescent

In parts of Northern Africa, it was used but in the reverse,

the 1 Drop Rule was not some floating in the air concept. It was RULE on the books, it went hand in hand with miscogenation(race mixing). In it's origins it was to keep whites in their place by not mixing with Mulattoes or Blacks. These rules became very strong after Emancipation(the freeing of slaves...not Prince's album lol) This is also when we see the rise of KKK. The not only terrorized the 'colored' populations but also sympathetic whites.

Because whites were free and 'negroes & mulattoes' were mostly slaves, and weren't supposed to be able to read or intelligent enough to know better. The laws were originally pointed at the White citizens. Fining wipping and imprisonment were penalties.

miscogenation:a mixture of races; especially : marriage, cohabitation, or sexual intercourse between a white person and a member of another race

The problem Efan is that the Black political powers have taken this rule as a fact for the Black community for the sake of numbers and a few other things. So in a sense the Black Leaders are shaking hands with their "White Supremist" oppressors as for as these things are concerned.

Native-Americans had no one drop applied to them because it was expected that genocide would wipe them out. Native-Americans were not expected to be around long. They were herded onto Reservations or out West and that mostly cut any further interactions. Those still apart of 'mainstream' society usually mixed in with Blacks or Whites.

By the time Asian groups started immigrating to the US things were a lot different. And most Asians took residence in California which was pretty progressive as far as race was concerned even for Black-Americans.

There is something called 'ethnic trumping' which is not a LAW, but more a social inter-cultural thing that will happen when a person of 1 ethnic group mixing with another. Italian-American tend to do this. A person can be 1/2 Italian 1/2 English and the person may still see themselves as Italian, a lot of times other will too especially if they have the Italian last name. Also because even in the US the culture is very strong and the community still very interconnected.

What is hypodescent? Why is it important?
Hypodescent is the rule that automatically assigns the children of a mixed union or mating between members of different socioeconomic groups in the less privileged group. This is important to understand because it is how race is determined in the U.S. Because of hypodescent, race in the U.S. is fixed at birth and does not change. Also, due to the way hypodescent operates, the number of people classified as "black" or "Native American" is growing faster than the number of people classified as "white" because in order to be classified as white, both of your parents have to be "white." It is important to understand that this is not the only way in which race is assigned. Different cultures determine race in different manners.

[Edited 2/18/11 7:16am]

Thanks for the response on this. I appreciate it! I don't necessarily agree with all of it--more specifically, I understand what you're saying in the larger sense, but in the case of whether Sheila can be a sister or not, I don't understand it. What I mean is, it seems like there's a reverse that goes on: "You're not black ENOUGH to be a sister."

I understand exactly what you're saying in the last paragraph and I know why it's important. But in the case where a group of people are trying to ACCEPT someone into their group (as opposed to relegating them to a "lesser" status), I don't see why there would be a problem with it.

I think Sheila can be a sister AND a Latina AND all the other things she is. To say part black isn't black enough seems wrongheaded to me, just as part white isn't white enough is wrongheaded to me.

catpark said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Not completely ture, but I understand where your coming from. Even in America, there are large groups of varying ethnic groups that still only intermingle with people just like them. For various reason. There are still WASP communities that only marry intermingle with other White Anglo Saxon Protestants. There are town and villages all over the country that don't get much intermingling from other ethnic groups.

There are also varying sized groups of people in America for different reasons who have only populated with other African only genetic people. Some place in America are still very much racially defined "outright" where you don't cross into another part of town.

Also in Europe most not all but most African immigrants are very recent and still only mingle with their ethnic/cultural groups. Those who may mix with the particular Euro ethnic group tend to have moved outside of their 'cultural' community

I was talking about people of that have descended from slavery not African immigrants. Also majority of born and bred Africans don't see black Americans and Afro Caribbeans(including UK)as Africans anyway.

As Bob Marley said:

I don't have prejudice against meself. My father was a white and my mother was black. Them call me half-caste or whatever. Me don't dip on nobody's side. Me don't dip on the black man's side nor the white man's side. Me dip on God's side, the one who create me and cause me to come from black and white.

Bob knows best

Catpark, it is not unusual that a person born in Africa, is from an African ethnic group doesn't recognize Black Americans or Black Caribbeans as " full-blooded Africans, because neither from that group are "full-blooded Africans" because of what happened during the slavery era, where the blood of many Black Americans/Black Caribbeans mixed. But that does not mean that many Black Americans and Black Caribbeans don't accept the African-ancestry that they know runs through their veins, even if they don't practice the "direct" cultures of any full-blooded African-ethnic group existing today. Most Caribbeans define their identity/ethnicity by the island of their birth (i.e, Jamaican/Trinidadian/Bejan, etc.) whereas most Black Americans in the U.S, will define themselves (identity/culture) as Black American.

Both groups have their very, own variety of customs and ethnic groups, that they share among themselves. I've been blessed to experience both cultures, which is why I can speak on it.

I am of parents/grandparents/great-grandparents (paternal/maternal) born in the Caribbean. I was born in the U.S. along with my 4 siblings, while the other 4 siblings were born in the Caribbean. Black Caribbeans have African ancestors;slavery took place in the Caribbean first, before the first African slaves arrived in what is now called America. If you do some research in the Caribbean, you will see that African slaves were brought to the Caribbean (i.e, Virgin Islands). Keep in mind, that indigenous groups (Amerindians) from South and Cenrtral Americas were the first inhabitants in the Caribbean.

I'll use my parents place of birth (U.S. Virgin Islands) as an example. The first inhabitants were indigenous groups that came from South and Central Americas into many parts of the Caribbean, (i.e., Ciboneys/Arawaks/Tainos/Caribs, just to name a few), African slaves were later brought in on ships from West Africa, by the Europeans to work as slaves on the island. So yes, there's a long history of African ancestry all over the Caribbean and many sub-cultures that drew from those African ethnic groups, mixed in with other ethnic groups' cultures who also contributed to what is known today as the West Indian culture, despite the tumultous times/circumstances that existed during the transatlantic slavery era. The rest is history.

[Edited 2/18/11 8:42am]

Efan said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

I don't understand your question but I THINK your dealing with hypodescent

In parts of Northern Africa, it was used but in the reverse,

the 1 Drop Rule was not some floating in the air concept. It was RULE on the books, it went hand in hand with miscogenation(race mixing). In it's origins it was to keep whites in their place by not mixing with Mulattoes or Blacks. These rules became very strong after Emancipation(the freeing of slaves...not Prince's album lol) This is also when we see the rise of KKK. The not only terrorized the 'colored' populations but also sympathetic whites.

Because whites were free and 'negroes & mulattoes' were mostly slaves, and weren't supposed to be able to read or intelligent enough to know better. The laws were originally pointed at the White citizens. Fining wipping and imprisonment were penalties.

miscogenation:a mixture of races; especially : marriage, cohabitation, or sexual intercourse between a white person and a member of another race

The problem Efan is that the Black political powers have taken this rule as a fact for the Black community for the sake of numbers and a few other things. So in a sense the Black Leaders are shaking hands with their "White Supremist" oppressors as for as these things are concerned.

Native-Americans had no one drop applied to them because it was expected that genocide would wipe them out. Native-Americans were not expected to be around long. They were herded onto Reservations or out West and that mostly cut any further interactions. Those still apart of 'mainstream' society usually mixed in with Blacks or Whites.

By the time Asian groups started immigrating to the US things were a lot different. And most Asians took residence in California which was pretty progressive as far as race was concerned even for Black-Americans.

There is something called 'ethnic trumping' which is not a LAW, but more a social inter-cultural thing that will happen when a person of 1 ethnic group mixing with another. Italian-American tend to do this. A person can be 1/2 Italian 1/2 English and the person may still see themselves as Italian, a lot of times other will too especially if they have the Italian last name. Also because even in the US the culture is very strong and the community still very interconnected.

What is hypodescent? Why is it important?
Hypodescent is the rule that automatically assigns the children of a mixed union or mating between members of different socioeconomic groups in the less privileged group. This is important to understand because it is how race is determined in the U.S. Because of hypodescent, race in the U.S. is fixed at birth and does not change. Also, due to the way hypodescent operates, the number of people classified as "black" or "Native American" is growing faster than the number of people classified as "white" because in order to be classified as white, both of your parents have to be "white." It is important to understand that this is not the only way in which race is assigned. Different cultures determine race in different manners.

[Edited 2/18/11 7:16am]

Thanks for the response on this. I appreciate it! I don't necessarily agree with all of it--more specifically, I understand what you're saying in the larger sense, but in the case of whether Sheila can be a sister or not, I don't understand it. What I mean is, it seems like there's a reverse that goes on: "You're not black ENOUGH to be a sister."

I understand exactly what you're saying in the last paragraph and I know why it's important. But in the case where a group of people are trying to ACCEPT someone into their group (as opposed to relegating them to a "lesser" status), I don't see why there would be a problem with it.

I think Sheila can be a sister AND a Latina AND all the other things she is. To say part black isn't black enough seems wrongheaded to me, just as part white isn't white enough is wrongheaded to me.

I have no problem with the term Sista, it's not the same as saying Sheila E is Black.

Sometimes people use that term loosely and others use it mean Sistah = Black

Some people use Sister/Sista Brother/Brotha in a world family way

But the article I think puts it in a way as saying "Sheila E" is black

Efan said:

Thanks for the response on this. I appreciate it! I don't necessarily agree with all of it--more specifically, I understand what you're saying in the larger sense, but in the case of whether Sheila can be a sister or not, I don't understand it. What I mean is, it seems like there's a reverse that goes on: "You're not black ENOUGH to be a sister."

I understand exactly what you're saying in the last paragraph and I know why it's important. But in the case where a group of people are trying to ACCEPT someone into their group (as opposed to relegating them to a "lesser" status), I don't see why there would be a problem with it.

I think Sheila can be a sister AND a Latina AND all the other things she is. To say part black isn't black enough seems wrongheaded to me, just as part white isn't white enough is wrongheaded to me.

Thank you.

[Edited 2/18/11 8:08am]

DaphneLovesPR1NCE said:

2elijah said:

I totally understand this explanation then. In this perspective...Sheila is a sista then. Just by her being accepted and embracing the Black Community.

On another note, I think this nonsense dividing those within the black community by the "shades of their skin tones," and breaking that down in "percentages" to determine who gets classified to "pass through the Black door or not" is total BS, and is no different than having an "apartheid" mentality.

Those who have no issue defining themselves as Black or African-American, based on their similar/shared cultures/ethnicities/life experiences/ histories etc., among others within that group of many complexions, should not have to be "watered-down" to be "validated or valued" as human beings, when they are already inclusive within the human species.

You do realize that this is just the racist white people's mindset enstilled in the black community right? Saying someone that has a black/white parent and white parent is black is ridiculous and really wrong for them. They should accept who they are and be encouraged to embrace different parts of their heritage...its in THEIR best interest! I believe alot of biracial people feel the need to only identify with their black side b/c a. white may not accept them b. blacks jump all over them if they say they are mixed or biracial. This is a shame, really it is. Its kind of like when a child is adopted from say China and is raised by white parents, the parents are encouraged to teach the child about their Chinese heritage, it will be much better for them in the long run to embrace their heritage, just like blacks are taught to embrace theirs. Everyone should be proud of who they are 100%, not just proud of a part of it. And teaching biracial people to embrace their other side is in no way the black community not loving them as much.

That is not a "black thing" though and I won't discount that you hear those comments. Those are comments that come out of many communities, not just from "some" within the Black community. I've heard that among the Hispanic community as well, but I will not say "all" of Hispanic heritage thinks that way. I doubt anyone has their hand on your neck holding you down and demanding you define yourself according to their standards, all they could do is give their opinion on how society tends to "judge" people on a racial basis.

Example, this is why Paula Patton, Robin Thicke's wife, prefers to define herself as Black, because of the treatment she stated she received from many whites in her profession and just through some life experiences as an actress. Blacks did not design the one-drop rule, and if you (as a biracial person) do hear someone from the Black community telling you that you will be viewed by most within society as "Black", well that comment is obviously based on "societal experience". Even if no one ever mentions the one-drop rule, trust and believe that will not erase "racist attitudes/views" that people have of others in this society.

It is well-known that it is anyone's right to define themselves "as they choose", but it's also not the Black community's fault, how an entire society will view others, who don't define themselves as part of our community.

2elijah said:

Tremolina said:

This is the same rule as the "one drop rule" that the racist USA applied for hundreds of years to anybody with just one drop of "black blood".

Bascially a totally racist concept therefore.

Yet that is not the fault of Black Americans because they were not the ones who "designed" that system. When racists educate themselves that they came from the same human species, as the people they designed these type of racist systems for, then maybe we won't have to have these discussions anymore.

who taught their peoI don't see how it can be when

Just because people were taught something that is racist and wrong, doesn't make it okay to keep that evil idea that you are "either this or that" and nothing in between alive and well. Using that logic, we shouldn't blame white supramecists for being racist either, when they apply the one drop rule. Hell, they were taught to think that way and black people do it too, so?

2elijah said:

I never said anything about that, ur misquoting me, I said about Africans ie west Africans in particular not accepting Carribeans/Americans as Africans not the other way around. I know about Carribean history.

babynoz said:

Efan said:

Thanks for the response on this. I appreciate it! I don't necessarily agree with all of it--more specifically, I understand what you're saying in the larger sense, but in the case of whether Sheila can be a sister or not, I don't understand it. What I mean is, it seems like there's a reverse that goes on: "You're not black ENOUGH to be a sister."

I understand exactly what you're saying in the last paragraph and I know why it's important. But in the case where a group of people are trying to ACCEPT someone into their group (as opposed to relegating them to a "lesser" status), I don't see why there would be a problem with it.

I think Sheila can be a sister AND a Latina AND all the other things she is. To say part black isn't black enough seems wrongheaded to me, just as part white isn't white enough is wrongheaded to me.

Thank you.

[Edited 2/18/11 8:08am]

.
[Edited 2/18/11 8:53am]

catpark said:

2elijah said:

Catpark, it is not unusual that a person born in Africa, is from an African ethnic group doesn't recognize Black Americans or Black Caribbeans as " full-blooded Africans, because neither from that group are "full-blooded Africans" because of what happened during the slavery era, where the blood of many Black Americans/Black Caribbeans mixed. But that does not mean that many Black Americans and Black Caribbeans don't accept the African-ancestry that they know runs through their veins, even if they don't practice the "direct" cultures of any full-blooded African-ethnic group existing today. Most Caribbeans define their identity/ethnicity by the island of their birth (i.e, Jamaican/Trinidadian/Bejan, etc.) whereas most Black Americans in the U.S, will define themselves (identity/culture) as Black American.

Both groups have their very, own variety of customs and ethnic groups, that they share among themselves. I've been blessed to experience both cultures, which is why I can speak on it.

I am of parents/grandparents/great-grandparents (paternal/maternal) born in the Caribbean. I was born in the U.S. along with my 4 siblings, while the other 4 siblings were born in the Caribbean. Black Caribbeans have African ancestors;slavery took place in the Caribbean first, before the first African slaves arrived in what is now called America. If you do some research in the Caribbean, you will see that African slaves were brought to the Caribbean (i.e, Virgin Islands). Keep in mind, that indigenous groups (Amerindians) from South and Cenrtral Americas were the first inhabitants in the Caribbean.

I'll use my parents place of birth (U.S. Virgin Islands) as an example. The e first inhabitants were indigenous groups that came from South and Central Americas into many parts of the Caribbean, (i.e., Ciboneys/Arawaks/Tainos/Caribs, just to name a few), African slaves were later brought in on ships from West Africa, by the Europeans to work as slaves on the island. So yes, there's a long history of African ancestry in all over the Caribbean. The rest is history.

I never said anything about that, ur misquoting me, I said about Africans ie west Africans in particular not accepting Carribeans/Americans as Africans not the other way around. I know about Carribean history.

Catpark Your post came in twice

OldFriends4Sale said:

catpark said:

2elijah said: I never said anything about that, ur misquoting me, I said about Africans ie west Africans in particular not accepting Carribeans/Americans as Africans not the other way around. I know about Carribean history.

Catpark Your post came in twice

stupid phone!

[Edited 2/18/11 8:51am]

catpark said:

2elijah said:

Catpark, it is not unusual that a person born in Africa, is from an African ethnic group doesn't recognize Black Americans or Black Caribbeans as " full-blooded Africans, because neither from that group are "full-blooded Africans" because of what happened during the slavery era, where the blood of many Black Americans/Black Caribbeans mixed. But that does not mean that many Black Americans and Black Caribbeans don't accept the African-ancestry that they know runs through their veins, even if they don't practice the "direct" cultures of any full-blooded African-ethnic group existing today. Most Caribbeans define their identity/ethnicity by the island of their birth (i.e, Jamaican/Trinidadian/Bejan, etc.) whereas most Black Americans in the U.S, will define themselves (identity/culture) as Black American.

Both groups have their very, own variety of customs and ethnic groups, that they share among themselves. I've been blessed to experience both cultures, which is why I can speak on it.

I am of parents/grandparents/great-grandparents (paternal/maternal) born in the Caribbean. I was born in the U.S. along with my 4 siblings, while the other 4 siblings were born in the Caribbean. Black Caribbeans have African ancestors;slavery took place in the Caribbean first, before the first African slaves arrived in what is now called America. If you do some research in the Caribbean, you will see that African slaves were brought to the Caribbean (i.e, Virgin Islands). Keep in mind, that indigenous groups (Amerindians) from South and Cenrtral Americas were the first inhabitants in the Caribbean.

I'll use my parents place of birth (U.S. Virgin Islands) as an example. The e first inhabitants were indigenous groups that came from South and Central Americas into many parts of the Caribbean, (i.e., Ciboneys/Arawaks/Tainos/Caribs, just to name a few), African slaves were later brought in on ships from West Africa, by the Europeans to work as slaves on the island. So yes, there's a long history of African ancestry in all over the Caribbean. The rest is history.

I never said anything about that, ur misquoting me, I said about Africans ie west Africans in particular not accepting Carribeans/Americans as Africans not the other way around. I know about Carribean history.

Okay, no need to be defensive, Didn't mean to ruffle your fathers, and I did not misquote you. You made a comment about West Africans not accepting, Caribbean/African Americans as "Africans". That's not unusual, because all 3 groups practice different cultures, and were born in different places. However, there are many Africans who tell Black Americans/Black Caribbeans that they "are part of them", so it's really based on the individual(s) Africans that you encounter and their views on non-native born Africans.

I've heard that same comment over the years come from Black Caribbeans born in the Caribbean, tell me I'm not considered one of them because I was born in the states. Yet both my parents are from the Caribbean and the West Indian culture was practiced at home. To me that's like telling a Puerto Rican, born in NYC, that they are not Puerto Rican, because they were not born in Puerto Rico. Anyway, have a blessed day.

Tremolina said:

2elijah said:

Yet that is not the fault of Black Americans because they were not the ones who "designed" that system. When racists educate themselves that they came from the same human species, as the people they designed these type of racist systems for, then maybe we won't have to have these discussions anymore.

who taught their peoI don't see how it can be when

Just because people were taught something that is racist and wrong, doesn't make it okay to keep that evil idea that you are "either this or that" and nothing in between alive and well. Using that logic, we shouldn't blame white supramecists for being racist either, when they apply the one drop rule. Hell, they were taught to think that way and black people do it too, so?

Yep it shouldn't be the fault of skinheads who are taught racist ideas of supremacy, if it ok for Black people to accept and press racist ideas

Eartha Kitt 1/2 White daughter Katt 3/4th White grandaughter 7/8th white

Eartha Kitt 1/2 Black daughter Katt 1/4th Black grandaughter 1/8th black

catpark said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Catpark Your post came in twice

stupid phone!

lol either I'm old or I just can't do the phone thing

Tremolina said:

2elijah said:

Yet that is not the fault of Black Americans because they were not the ones who "designed" that system. When racists educate themselves that they came from the same human species, as the people they designed these type of racist systems for, then maybe we won't have to have these discussions anymore.

who taught their peoI don't see how it can be when

Just because people were taught something that is racist and wrong, doesn't make it okay to keep that evil idea that you are "either this or that" and nothing in between alive and well. Using that logic, we shouldn't blame white supramecists for being racist either, when they apply the one drop rule. Hell, they were taught to think that way and black people do it too, so?

I never said it was okay dude. Seriously, where did you get that from in my post? Not all Black people believe in that bs rule, which was designed by groups that had the mentality of white supremacists. The "fact" of the matter is, many groups in this society are already conditioned with that type of mentality, and no one "ever" said it was okay. Hatrina was just pointing out the views of many within society, regarding that one-drop rule; she never said she believed in it, but the unfortunate fact is, that type of mentality is deeply ingrained in the minds of many within American society, just like white supremacists actually believe they are from some twilight-zone superior race. Neither is okay.

[Edited 2/18/11 9:08am]

OldFriends4Sale said:

2elijah said:

Get your facts straight...the Africans did not get their "slanted" eyes from Asians. Do some "real" research. Those shaped eyes came from ancient Africans. The Sans Bushmen are the oldest living descendants of ancient humans alive today, and hold the facial features of the entire human race. Don't believe me, do some reading and research. You're talking out of your ass on some of the information you’re posting, and making generalized statements that the "black community wants to claim everyone" As a Black American, I have absolutely no desire to claim anyone's racial background/heritage as my own. Who are you to speak for me or any Black American, when you're talking this bs?

1) Black Americans, as well as those from the Caribbean are technically mulitiracial - don't believe me? Yeah, that’s right…surprised, coming from a person who defines herself as a “Black American” because I can? Run a DNA tests on all of us and it will prove my point. Some of you need to relax, one defining themselves as “Black American”, for example, does not necessarily mean they discount “all of who they may be” on a racial/ethnic basis. With you, being a person of “color”, and others like yourself on this board, dividing “lighter skinned blacks vs dark skinned blacks” and placing them in separate boxes and choosing who is Black/not black enough, based on their skin tones, then accusing the entire black community of “wanting to claim others” bs , yet at the same time, trying to tell Blacks, as a whole, how they should should define themselves, according to your bs, well you’re doing just as much damage as former slaveholders, and those that designed the “race/class systems” So speak for yourself, and stop generalizing all Blacks as though they are from one sound mind. We’re not.

2) Secondly, speaking for myself, as a Black-American woman, the term "Black" for me, does not necessarily reference someone's skin tone or defining onself as "solely" African, as many clueless folks thinks it does, especially when most Black Americans, including myself, haven't done a geneaology search to know which African, ethnic group they are connected to. One thing though, at least some of us are aware that we do have ancestors that were connected to an African, ethnic group, even if most Black Americans today, will probably never know which African, ethnic group it was, and will never practice the culture of those specific groups, because they’ve been too far removed from them, mostly due to the transatlantic slave trade era.

3) No need to jump all over those of us here who are comfortable with defining ourselves as Black Americans, especially when many of us who are well-informed about the history of the human species, are at comfort with who we are. On that note, have a nice day, and please take the time to do some real research before spouting off the bs you’re spreading on this thread.

Daphne will have to clear that up, but I believe she is making reference to the false idea that Africans got their slanted eyes because Asians invade Africa... It was just worded/read differently. I don't think she is saying Asians invaded Africa, she is commenting on the idea that "Romans & Greeks" invaded enslaved and raped Egyptians and that's why they are lighter skinned. <- that is the incorrect information... and I believe U agreed with Jasons post earlier

Let's get that straight, shall we? As far as Jason's post, I replied to your comment to him, where you assumed Jason stated "Egyptians didn't enslave people", when in fact, "Jason" never implied that. Next.