“I’m Bi-Racial…Not Black Damn It!”

[kifaru]

I can't relate but I know some of you can.

There is a new documentary that has surfaced and it’s called “I’m Bi-Racial…Not Black Damn It!”

It is produced and directed by Carolyn Battle Cochrane who is exploring the world of all those living with two or more ethnicities inside their immediate family. It can be cruel, tough, back breaking work for those that are of other cultures coming up in a predominantly black neighborhood, much less anyplace else on Earth.

But with our plethora of identity issues in the black community, it is just like Frank Sinatra said, “If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.” Being “light skinned”, bi-racial, or anything that brings attention to yourself in the black community will get you started on your ”rite of passage.” I haven’t walked a mile in the director’s shoes, but I kinda think she should’ve thought about that title just a little more. It screams, “I don’t like the black in me.” Which leads us back to our innate prejudice that is sometimes projected on to those we encounter, whether black or white and we sometimes make our own problems.

But hey, she even agrees that there needs to be NEW DIALOGUE on the matter. Check it out! It seems to be quite thought provoking and mind opening

" target="_blank">

[LesYpersound]

so the topic of race can be as diluted as it is in latin america? no thanks. political blackness is very important imo and i'm oddly appreciative of the history of race in america because there's less bullshit to deal with when it comes to addressing the problem and seeing who is politically aware and who isn't and honestly which side ppl are (white "normalcy"/domination or on the side of the oppressed).
and it's harder to co-opt or align yourself with white normalcy if they aren't feeding you lines of bullshit that you can fuck your way to whiteness.

[NotSoPhotogenic]

You are entitled to your opinion, but personally, I don't think there is any more bullshit in Latin American approaches to "race" than that in the U.S. I think Latin America's "racial" bullshit is merely different than that of the U.S. Both regions have a hierarchy which seems to be the main problem. I'm not trying to delegitimize "political blackness," but the idea that "blackness" and "whiteness" are fixed, immutable concepts, which is certainly the dominant opinion in the States, is problematic, to say the least (and in my opinion, as problematic as Latin America's more fluid approach). And who is to say that someone who disagrees with "political blackness" and more conventional "black pride/identity" is incorrect? The U.S. is probably the only place where, ancestrally/"racially," 1+1=1.


LesYpersound said:

so the topic of race can be as diluted as it is in latin america? no thanks. political blackness is very important imo and i'm oddly appreciative of the history of race in america because there's less bullshit to deal with when it comes to addressing the problem and seeing who is politically aware and who isn't and honestly which side ppl are (white "normalcy"/domination or on the side of the oppressed).
and it's harder to co-opt or align yourself with white normalcy if they aren't feeding you lines of bullshit that you can fuck your way to whiteness.

[LesYpersound]

political blackness has nothing to do with immutable qualities it's about clearly defining and fighting oppression and not getting caught up in dreams of becoming the oppressor one day.

the difference of latin american racism is that the black people don't see themselves as black people and it's a struggle to get people to recognize that the societies are set up to put white people on top and blacks and indigenous people on the bottom and mixed race people as transitional forms along the way to whiteness and the annihilation or "assimilation" (e.g oppression and invisibility) of the mud people.

[NotSoPhotogenic]

With all due respect, who are you to tell other people who "they really are" and how they should, therefore, identify? Are you "one-dropping" Latinos of a degree of African descent as "black?" How can anyone clearly define "political blackness," or political "anything"-ness? It seems the only way to define it "clearly" is to make it rigid and inflexible, therefore creating the illusion of immutability. It is certainly not the only way to fight oppression, and who says that Latin American people, particularly those of mixed "race," want to become the oppressor? There's a reason that today's Latin American countries overthrew their European rulers and became independent. To me, the problem exists in that while the Latin American people may have overthrown their oppressors, they did not dismantle the hierarchy that existed. But one of the positive things that happened (in my opinion) is the fusion of peoples and cultures that took place throughout the region. Virtually all Latin American countries are, culturally and "racially," a mix of Amerindian, African, and European elements-- and no, I don't consider this annihilation, especially since there was no way that "purely" European culture could be successfully imposed. Personally, I will deny none of these heritages in my background, especially not for a political cause. I'm not sure if any cause that includes denial is worth fighting for.

LesYpersound said:

political blackness has nothing to do with immutable qualities it's about clearly defining and fighting oppression and not getting caught up in dreams of becoming the oppressor one day.

the difference of latin american racism is that the black people don't see themselves as black people and it's a struggle to get people to recognize that the societies are set up to put white people on top and blacks and indigenous people on the bottom and mixed race people as transitional forms along the way to whiteness and the annihilation or "assimilation" (e.g oppression and invisibility) of the mud people.

[kifaru]

Well in my opinion I think the thing that is congruent in these parallell racial perspectives (the american and the latino) is that black occupies the negative end of the spectrum and white occupies the positive end of the spectrum. Not only that but the fact that the level of a person's percieved "whiteness" i.e. skin color, hair texture, facial features, speech, and mannerisms confers greater opportunities and status the closer one approaches the white ideal.

As far as "annihilation" if you look at genetic population studies you can see that in Souther America and the Spanish speaking Carribean the males of these populations approach 90% european derived Y chromosome in many areas where native or african mtdna predominates. That would indicate that there was a massacre of native or african males or that whiteness conferred more mating opportunites for white males (rape?) or whiteness allowed males to live to sexual maturity.

Anyway it's good that we discuss these issues so at least we have an idea of peoples different perspectives.

[LesYpersound]

NotSoPhotogenic said:

With all due respect, who are you to tell other people who "they really are" and how they should, therefore, identify? Are you "one-dropping" Latinos of a degree of African descent as "black?" How can anyone clearly define "political blackness," or political "anything"-ness? It seems the only way to define it "clearly" is to make it rigid and inflexible, therefore creating the illusion of immutability. It is certainly not the only way to fight oppression, and who says that Latin American people, particularly those of mixed "race," want to become the oppressor? There's a reason that today's Latin American countries overthrew their European rulers and became independent. To me, the problem exists in that while the Latin American people may have overthrown their oppressors, they did not dismantle the hierarchy that existed. But one of the positive things that happened (in my opinion) is the fusion of peoples and cultures that took place throughout the region. Virtually all Latin American countries are, culturally and "racially," a mix of Amerindian, African, and European elements-- and no, I don't consider this annihilation, especially since there was no way that "purely" European culture could be successfully imposed. Personally, I will deny none of these heritages in my background, especially not for a political cause. I'm not sure if any cause that includes denial is worth fighting for.
LesYpersound said:

political blackness has nothing to do with immutable qualities it's about clearly defining and fighting oppression and not getting caught up in dreams of becoming the oppressor one day.

the difference of latin american racism is that the black people don't see themselves as black people and it's a struggle to get people to recognize that the societies are set up to put white people on top and blacks and indigenous people on the bottom and mixed race people as transitional forms along the way to whiteness and the annihilation or "assimilation" (e.g oppression and invisibility) of the mud people.

People can do whatever they like, but if you look and are treated as a black or non-white person by a white dominated society and you aren't politicized enough to see that white normalcy is a fallacy and want to have little lighter skinned babies with good hair then politically you're not acknowledging your "political blackness"/"political non-whiteness" and that's internalized oppression (see: Frantz Fanon to Gandhi to Paulo Freire).

I think you're missing my point b/c I haven't been explicit enough--even "white" people can embrace "political blackness/political non-white-normalcy". What I'm talking about is politics and not biology. To recognize oppression, call a spade a spade, and not put whiteness at the top of a pedestal or be ignorant of the advantages of whiteness in white-dominated society (and the disadvantages of non-whiteness and then choosing to side w/ the less privileged side politically), and not interpreting normal as "whiteness" -- all of these things indicate "political blackness".

No one (least of all me, i think i've been pretty nuanced in this thread) is asking you to deny anything--but I suppose all I'm saying is that I hope you identify against oppression and side politically with the less privileged and less safe of your cultural/political/racial experiences.

Also I think the racial and cultural fluidity and unwillingness to identify simply as one race is a beautiful thing but if there's systematic disparities that are clearly set along racial lines then the work isn't done and when you ignore race while there are such huge disparities present in that society then you're enabling a racialized oppression and simply ignoring the obvious.

It's this idea of political blackness that has made Obama identify as a black man first... but that's not all that he identifies as and he doesn't deny his white mother or grandparents... know what I mean?

[LesYpersound]

he publicly embraces his white mother and acknowledges his multi*racial heritage... but first and foremost in the realm of > politics < Obama is a black man. another person whose got her politics straight is the model Noemi Lenoir--half french and identifies as a black woman in public society, especially politically--to the point where she got in a verbal fight w/ Karl Lagerfeld (lol).

[LesYpersound]

An interesting video w/ Annette Gordon-Reed the author of The Hemingses of Monticello...
in the second half of the video she basically explains why it's a good time (during the election race w/ Obama being seen as an interesting mixedrace person) to talk about the Hemingses and their relationship with Jefferson in their real historical context:

(the whole series of videos are really interesting... much respect to Mrs. Gordan-Reed)

and an important point she re-emphasizes in this particular segment is that the United States of America was never a white country and had a distinctively multi-ethnic African character from the beginning--different languages and cultures existing side by side and a diverse black community that persisted even as our ancestors were legally enslaved by white people and viewed as less than human.

i guess i'm posting this to make the point that race in America has never been so cut and dry simple. Shits always been messy, but I value the stark contrasts that have and do exist because it makes fighting the oppression easier because it's clearly identifiable and it's obviously political (and has no real biological basis).

[NotSoPhotogenic]

Well-stated, Kifaru. I think Latinos and U.S. Americans definitely would agree that there is a hierarchy in the Americas which idealizes perceived "whiteness" and uses "blackness" as a bottom standard (although I personally don't subscribe to this). Regarding "annihilation," however, I think it is a bit more complicated than that. While people often allude to the "rape" of the European conquerors towards the Americas, it is important not to conflate symbolic "rape" (taking over a land and exploiting its resources) with literal rape (which I'm certain did occur in large scale). Personally, having studies Latin American history, I think that the symbolic "rape" was more of a reality than the literal rape, as the European conquistadors certainly did their share of robbing the resources from the indigenous and native people (not necessarily synonymous). But while the colonial "founding" of the Americas definitely began with genocide, most historians believe that the "racial" mixing that occurred came quite often in the form of intermarriage, extra-marital affairs, and concubinage-- perhaps even moreso than rape. An unintended byproduct of this was a thoroughly hybridized set of cultures that were, by "birth," native to the Americas, but drew upon three different continents for influences.

It is because of this, along with the fact that many indigenous cultures are still alive and well in Latin America, that I, personally, don't believe that ethnicicide, or true cultural annihilation, describes the realities of Latin America. I think that "annihilation" would be a more appropriate term if the cultures of Latin America became and remained "purely" and thoroughly European in origin. Just my opinion, of course. Peace.


kifaru said:

Well in my opinion I think the thing that is congruent in these parallell racial perspectives (the american and the latino) is that black occupies the negative end of the spectrum and white occupies the positive end of the spectrum. Not only that but the fact that the level of a person's percieved "whiteness" i.e. skin color, hair texture, facial features, speech, and mannerisms confers greater opportunities and status the closer one approaches the white ideal.

As far as "annihilation" if you look at genetic population studies you can see that in Souther America and the Spanish speaking Carribean the males of these populations approach 90% european derived Y chromosome in many areas where native or african mtdna predominates. That would indicate that there was a massacre of native or african males or that whiteness conferred more mating opportunites for white males (rape?) or whiteness allowed males to live to sexual maturity.

Anyway it's good that we discuss these issues so at least we have an idea of peoples different perspectives.

[NotSoPhotogenic]

I think I can understand what you mean now, LesYpersound—thank you for clarifying. : )
What you say hints at one of the points that I’ve been highlighting regarding Latin America and, by extension, the Americas as a whole. The “white hierarchy,” like any “racial”/color-based hierarchy, is the problem, not the hybridity. Unfortunately, a lot of people have gotten into the habit of attacking the hybridity instead of the unequal power structure (sort of akin to “shooting the messenger”).

Coming from my own perspective, I totally agree with pretty much everything you’ve said regarding “whiteness,” and the bias of equating “whiteness” with normalcy. And of course I align myself with the less privileged—as a mixed “race” Latino from South Central Los Angeles, who also happens to pretty much be a Marxist (no, I’m not a strict Marxist), how could I not support my own kind?

While I am also very much an anti-racialist (obviously, I’m anti-racism, but I think “race” is a bullshit concept as it is), I acknowledge that it is at least a “social reality” in our society, and I know that I need to acknowledge the problem before fighting it. I make it a personal goal of mine to problematize and (hopefully) help dismantle “racial” hierarchy as well as the very notion of “race” from our society (and, by extension, the Americas).

I probably went on a tangent towards the end, but this is honestly how I feel. I think embracing multiracialism and multiculturalism is a step in the right direction of dismantling the hierarchy that plagues nuestra America (all of our America). Peace.


LesYpersound said:

NotSoPhotogenic said:

With all due respect, who are you to tell other people who "they really are" and how they should, therefore, identify? Are you "one-dropping" Latinos of a degree of African descent as "black?" How can anyone clearly define "political blackness," or political "anything"-ness? It seems the only way to define it "clearly" is to make it rigid and inflexible, therefore creating the illusion of immutability. It is certainly not the only way to fight oppression, and who says that Latin American people, particularly those of mixed "race," want to become the oppressor? There's a reason that today's Latin American countries overthrew their European rulers and became independent. To me, the problem exists in that while the Latin American people may have overthrown their oppressors, they did not dismantle the hierarchy that existed. But one of the positive things that happened (in my opinion) is the fusion of peoples and cultures that took place throughout the region. Virtually all Latin American countries are, culturally and "racially," a mix of Amerindian, African, and European elements-- and no, I don't consider this annihilation, especially since there was no way that "purely" European culture could be successfully imposed. Personally, I will deny none of these heritages in my background, especially not for a political cause. I'm not sure if any cause that includes denial is worth fighting for.
LesYpersound said:

political blackness has nothing to do with immutable qualities it's about clearly defining and fighting oppression and not getting caught up in dreams of becoming the oppressor one day.

the difference of latin american racism is that the black people don't see themselves as black people and it's a struggle to get people to recognize that the societies are set up to put white people on top and blacks and indigenous people on the bottom and mixed race people as transitional forms along the way to whiteness and the annihilation or "assimilation" (e.g oppression and invisibility) of the mud people.

People can do whatever they like, but if you look and are treated as a black or non-white person by a white dominated society and you aren't politicized enough to see that white normalcy is a fallacy and want to have little lighter skinned babies with good hair then politically you're not acknowledging your "political blackness"/"political non-whiteness" and that's internalized oppression (see: Frantz Fanon to Gandhi to Paulo Freire).

I think you're missing my point b/c I haven't been explicit enough--even "white" people can embrace "political blackness/political non-white-normalcy". What I'm talking about is politics and not biology. To recognize oppression, call a spade a spade, and not put whiteness at the top of a pedestal or be ignorant of the advantages of whiteness in white-dominated society (and the disadvantages of non-whiteness and then choosing to side w/ the less privileged side politically), and not interpreting normal as "whiteness" -- all of these things indicate "political blackness".

No one (least of all me, i think i've been pretty nuanced in this thread) is asking you to deny anything--but I suppose all I'm saying is that I hope you identify against oppression and side politically with the less privileged and less safe of your cultural/political/racial experiences.

Also I think the racial and cultural fluidity and unwillingness to identify simply as one race is a beautiful thing but if there's systematic disparities that are clearly set along racial lines then the work isn't done and when you ignore race while there are such huge disparities present in that society then you're enabling a racialized oppression and simply ignoring the obvious.

It's this idea of political blackness that has made Obama identify as a black man first... but that's not all that he identifies as and he doesn't deny his white mother or grandparents... know what I mean?

[SKATEXEDGE]

I can relate to what they are saying. Growing up in a white suburban environment I understand white racism. But then later on moving to a more mixed city I discovered black racism for being light skinned, green eyes and talking "like a white boy".

I was too black to be white and too white to be black. Go figure.

I self identify as a black man. That's how society at large views me and that's fine. I don't deny the other races in my family, that would be stupid. But however a person wants to self identify is up to them.