'People of Color' Term is Already Running into Trouble

[marshwiggle]

People who look black are black. That part's easy.

For what it is worth, that isn't actually exactly true. There are, in fact, people who identify as black, who most people wouldn't classify that way if they saw them out of any context. Walter White, the longtime head of the NAACP is one of the more famous examples. http://blackhistorynow.com/walter-francis-white/

White grew up in a family that always identified as black within a black community, but he was able to interview white people about lynchings in Southern towns. Race isn't just about appearance.

So why can't Rachel Dolezal "identify as black"?

[Diogenes]

So why can't Rachel Dolezal "identify as black"?

Within the social construct of race in the US, we identify race by lineage.  "One drop rule" and all that. In Brazil, it's more by color of the individuals skin, regardless of their parent's appearance or ethnicity. So she may have better luck getting away with her blackface down there.

[mahagonny]

Yes, exactly, because nobody really thinks that any of these terms are offensive. So much of this discussion seems to be based around the idea that you're going to be in trouble for using the wrong term, but it just isn't true. Minority is actually a weird term in various ways, so you can see why people have looked for an alternative, but people of color comes with problems too. But you can use either term and nobody is going to think you're being a racist just because they think a different term would be better. Ditto for black and African American.

Ideally, yes. But I would nitpick with your using the term 'nobody.' There are people around who call people racist for all sorts of made up reasons, and a lot of them are white.

[Caracal]

People who look black are black. That part's easy.

For what it is worth, that isn't actually exactly true. There are, in fact, people who identify as black, who most people wouldn't classify that way if they saw them out of any context. Walter White, the longtime head of the NAACP is one of the more famous examples. http://blackhistorynow.com/walter-francis-white/

White grew up in a family that always identified as black within a black community, but he was able to interview white people about lynchings in Southern towns. Race isn't just about appearance.

So why can't Rachel Dolezal "identify as black"?

Well both of his parents were born into slavery. He grew up in a black world. Because of his appearance, he almost certainly could have chosen to pass as white if he had wanted to, but that would have entailed a series of very deliberate decisions. He would have needed to move away, and essentially obscure and renounce his past. Whatever, you think of Dolezal, what she did was almost exactly the opposite. She chose to take on an identity that was very much not the one she was born into.

[Parasaurolophus]

So why can't Rachel Dolezal "identify as black"?

She can. What she can't get is the appropriate uptake, because she's missing a causal history that's deemed necessary. It was the same with Michael Jackson, but in reverse.

Within the social construct of race in the US, we identify race by lineage.  "One drop rule" and all that. In Brazil, it's more by color of the individuals skin, regardless of their parent's appearance or ethnicity. So she may have better luck getting away with her blackface down there.

Not all races, though. The one drop rule never really applied to indigenous peoples. Even when blood quanta were introduced for indigenous peoples in 1934, it was messy and unevenly applied, and lineal descent was and continues to be a more important component, along with community membership.

For marshy's purposes, it's worth pointing out that the blood quantum thing is even less applicable to indigenous peoples in Canada, where until a couple years ago what you needed by law was a direct male ancestor. An indigenous father would pass on his status, but an indigenous mother couldn't. Over the last several hundred years, this has led to the systematic bureaucratic erasure of entire generations of indigenous people, which has proven awfully convenient for governments which are constantly embroiled in unresolved land claims.

But yeah. The trouble is that 'race' is not a concept that picks out robust clusters of genetic properties. It just picks out phenotypical properties, and groups people together based on those, even when the genetic differences between those people are really quite significant. Linguistic groups are somewhat more genetically homogenous than racial groupings.

[mamselle]

I'm recalling some very well-worded engagements between anthroid and acrimone on this topic about a dozen years ago.

Some of the same points came up then.

M.

[Caracal]

So why can't Rachel Dolezal "identify as black"?

Within the social construct of race in the US, we identify race by lineage.  "One drop rule" and all that. In Brazil, it's more by color of the individuals skin, regardless of their parent's appearance or ethnicity. So she may have better luck getting away with her blackface down there.

This is actually an early 20th century development. Throughout most of the 19th century, courts and legislators avoided defining race solely by ancestry. Mostly, they argued that to do so could undermine white supremacy. The problem as was sometimes openly acknowledged, was that lots of people who were considered white actually had black or Native American ancestry if you went back far enough. The standard was the community view of someone's race, not ancestry. Even when one drop rules were adopted in the early 20th century, it was more of a racial fiction than a reality.

[marshwiggle]

For marshy's purposes, it's worth pointing out that the blood quantum thing is even less applicable to indigenous peoples in Canada, where until a couple years ago what you needed by law was a direct male ancestor. An indigenous father would pass on his status, but an indigenous mother couldn't. Over the last several hundred years, this has led to the systematic bureaucratic erasure of entire generations of indigenous people, which has proven awfully convenient for governments which are constantly embroiled in unresolved land claims.

Except when it comes to adoption. For anyone who missed this CBC article from 2016:

Short intro:

Organizers of an all First Nations sports event in B.C. are being accused of racism and discrimination for benching a status Indian player who is black.

Organizers of the All Native Basketball Tournament say Josiah Wilson can't compete because he doesn't have First Nations ancestry or "bloodlines."

Wilson, a point guard with the Heiltsuk Wolf Pack team, is of Haitian descent. He was adopted as an infant in Haiti and raised by a Heiltsuk First Nation family in Canada.

So who is (are) the racist(s) here?

[Parasaurolophus]

I remember the case, although I don't know enough about the Indian Act and other relevant laws to have any kind of informed opinion about it. I seem to recall that the kid had a status card, however, and that he'd been allowed to live on a reserve where only status-holders are allowed to live. If that's right, then yes, it seems prima facie right that he should have been allowed to play. But what looks right at first glance can turn out to be wrong upon reflection.

For national minorities on the brink of extinction (especially those which have been deliberately erased by the state), worries about dilution of culture seem entirely genuine to me. And I do think it's appropriate for them to take steps to preserve that culture, even when those steps involve a certain amount of discrimination (see, e.g., efforts to preserve French in Québec).

[marshwiggle]

I remember the case, although I don't know enough about the Indian Act and other relevant laws to have any kind of informed opinion about it. I seem to recall that the kid had a status card, however, and that he'd been allowed to live on a reserve where only status-holders are allowed to live. If that's right, then yes, it seems prima facie right that he should have been allowed to play. But what looks right at first glance can turn out to be wrong upon reflection.

For national minorities on the brink of extinction (especially those which have been deliberately erased by the state), worries about dilution of culture seem entirely genuine to me. And I do think it's appropriate for them to take steps to preserve that culture, even when those steps involve a certain amount of discrimination (see, e.g., efforts to preserve French in Québec).

Yes, because an orphan adopted as an infant represents represents such a monumental threat to the culture.

[Parasaurolophus]

Yes, because an orphan adopted as an infant represents represents such a monumental threat to the culture.

Individual cases never do. But the precedent they set can.


As I said, however: as it happens, I agree that what happened in the case in question seemed wrong to me. But that's my naïve opinion, not an especially informed one. And, as I said, I accept that preserving national minority cultures might require some discriminatory policies.

[Caracal]

For marshy's purposes, it's worth pointing out that the blood quantum thing is even less applicable to indigenous peoples in Canada, where until a couple years ago what you needed by law was a direct male ancestor. An indigenous father would pass on his status, but an indigenous mother couldn't. Over the last several hundred years, this has led to the systematic bureaucratic erasure of entire generations of indigenous people, which has proven awfully convenient for governments which are constantly embroiled in unresolved land claims.

Except when it comes to adoption. For anyone who missed this CBC article from 2016:

Short intro:

Organizers of an all First Nations sports event in B.C. are being accused of racism and discrimination for benching a status Indian player who is black.

Organizers of the All Native Basketball Tournament say Josiah Wilson can't compete because he doesn't have First Nations ancestry or "bloodlines."

Wilson, a point guard with the Heiltsuk Wolf Pack team, is of Haitian descent. He was adopted as an infant in Haiti and raised by a Heiltsuk First Nation family in Canada.

So who is (are) the racist(s) here?

I'm not really sure what your point is here. There's a whole complicated history in the US about race and Native Americans. I don't know enough about it to say much, but my understanding is that it has a lot to do with government designations of native Americans by race and bloodline and because ancestry was key to recognition of tribes and certain rights, Native Americans adopted various racial ideas. There's a whole controversy over black Seminole and Cherokee for example. I'm sure its more complicated, and I don't pretend to know much about Canada. Is it really particularly shocking that non white people can also have problematic relationships with race though?

[marshwiggle]

Yes, because an orphan adopted as an infant represents represents such a monumental threat to the culture.

Individual cases never do. But the precedent they set can.

Seriously, it's not like people can scheme to get themselves adopted as infants into some other culture or community. Are white nationalist groups going to heavily subsidize adoptions for indiginous families to undermine the bloodlines over time????
Given that people choose to adopt, how can this possibly be a threat to the community where a child is adopted? (I understand the historic question about children getting adopted from indiginous communities, especially in the situation where people outside the communities had the children put up for adoption if parents were deemed "unfit". But getting adopted into those communities doesn't pose the same problem.)

[Parasaurolophus]

Seriously, it's not like people can scheme to get themselves adopted as infants into some other culture or community. Are white nationalist groups going to heavily subsidize adoptions for indiginous families to undermine the bloodlines over time????
Given that people choose to adopt, how can this possibly be a threat to the community where a child is adopted? (I understand the historic question about children getting adopted from indiginous communities, especially in the situation where people outside the communities had the children put up for adoption if parents were deemed "unfit". But getting adopted into those communities doesn't pose the same problem.)

I think the worry concerns retroactively recognizing people adopted into communities, along with their descendants. Especially since, back in 2016, indigenous women still couldn't pass on their indigenous status. If anyone's going to have their status recognized, let it be indigenous people first. Others can come later.

But again, I agree about this particular case, especially since the relevant Heiltsuk community had already decided to accept the kid and grant him status. It doesn't seem especially threatening to me. What I'm saying is (1) I'm not an expert, and may well be missing important elements, and (2) I accept the general principle (which is that prioritizing the preservation of a national minority culture--especially one that's been systematically erased--may require some discrimination), and can accept this particular instance as a consequence of accepting the general principle.

[marshwiggle]

Seriously, it's not like people can scheme to get themselves adopted as infants into some other culture or community. Are white nationalist groups going to heavily subsidize adoptions for indiginous families to undermine the bloodlines over time????
Given that people choose to adopt, how can this possibly be a threat to the community where a child is adopted? (I understand the historic question about children getting adopted from indiginous communities, especially in the situation where people outside the communities had the children put up for adoption if parents were deemed "unfit". But getting adopted into those communities doesn't pose the same problem.)

I think the worry concerns retroactively recognizing people adopted into communities, along with their descendants. Especially since, back in 2016, indigenous women still couldn't pass on their indigenous status. If anyone's going to have their status recognized, let it be indigenous people first. Others can come later.

But again, I agree about this particular case, especially since the relevant Heiltsuk community had already decided to accept the kid and grant him status. It doesn't seem especially threatening to me. What I'm saying is (1) I'm not an expert, and may well be missing important elements, and (2) I accept the general principle (which is that prioritizing the preservation of a national minority culture--especially one that's been systematically erased--may require some discrimination), and can accept this particular instance as a consequence of accepting the general principle.

But if an indigenous woman adopts a non-indigenous child, she still can't pass on her status. so the historical injustice is actually perpetuated in a slightly modified context. (Adoption can hardly be considered an unusual circumstance. And since indigenous communities are generally small, adoptions from outside should not be surprising.)