Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
How Far Have We Really Come From the 'One-Drop Rule'?
White man, white woman, white baby /
White man, black woman, black baby /
Black man, white woman, black baby."
Public Enemy, Fear of a Black Planet
There is no doubt that the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States is historic. But does framing him as America's "first Black president" show that we have not come nearly as far as we'd like to think?
The mainstream U.S. news -- and the majority of the American public, whether for or against him -- consider Barack Obama to be the first African American President. While he is certainly a member of the Black community (and much more literally African-American due to his father being a Kenyan immigrant), he is also equally part of the white community. His mother was white. The grandmother who helped raise him (and whom he tragically lost to cancer on the eve of his election) was also white. But historically, and apparently to this day, to be Black to any degree is to be exclusively Black. Is our celebration of Barack Obama as the first Black president proof that we haven't moved very far past the "one-drop rule"?
A Drop of Black, and You Never Go Back
The one-drop rule is the perception that any amount of non-white ancestral heritage makes a person non-white. But there is more than one interpretation of the concept. For some, the distinction is based on physical traits. If you appear to have Black features, then you are Black, whether it is more or less than 50% of your ancestry. Slightly differently, some believe that if there is even the most dilute Black blood in a person's make-up, there will be a tell-tale sign of some kind that will prove the mixed heritage -- a birth mark, the shape of the crescent in the nail bed, or others.
But what we are seeing with the advent of Barack Obama as a national figure fits more within yet another third interpretation. Philosophy professor and author Naomi Zack defined it in her 1998 book, Thinking About Race. "One-drop rule: American social and legal custom of classifying anyone with one black ancestor, regardless of how far back, as black.” I asked Zack for her comments about Barack Obama. She replied: "Why is someone with an African father and a white mother, who if race were real would be mixed race, considered 'Black?' Why is it not also absurd to refer to that person as 'a multi-racial African American'?"
In 1994, legal scholar Julie C. Lythcott-Haims wrote in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review that the one-drop rule "still exists today; Americans who are part-Black are socially considered Black, and only Black by most Americans. ... The one-drop rule is so ingrained in the American psyche that Blacks and Whites do not think twice about it."
In 1997, we saw Tiger Woods as a multiracial person being reduced to one facet of his identity. On Oprah Winfrey's show, he was asked if it bothered him to be referred to simply as African-American. He responded, "It does. Growing up, I came up with this name: I'm a 'Cablinasian'" (meaning Caucasian-Black-Indian-Asian). "I'm just who I am," Woods told Winfrey, "whoever you see in front of you." Sportswriter Ralph Riley wrote about Woods' background and the one-drop rule, without naming it. "Tiger's Asian heritage defines him as thoroughly as any other aspect of his makeup, although we tend to throw everyone brown and American with nice lips into the black blender."
It isn't just white culture that follows the one-drop rule, as Tiger Woods experienced in 1997. A May 1997 article in Time magazine looked at the reaction to Woods' statement on Oprah. "Kerboom! a mini-racial fire storm erupted. Woods' remarks infuriated many African Americans who hailed his record-setting triumph at the Masters as a symbol of racial progress but see him as a traitor. To them Woods appeared to be running away from being an African American ... In their rush to judgment, the fearful apparently never stopped to consider that Woods was not turning his back on any part of his identity but instead was embracing every aspect of it."
Fast-forward to November 2006 and in a 2006 Zogby International poll, 55% of whites considered Obama as biracial after being told that Obama's mother was white and his Kenyan father was Black. Even more Hispanics -- 61% -- also saw Obama as biracial. But interestingly, 66% of the Blacks polled classified Obama as Black.
The October 23, 2006, cover story in Time magazine shows that we still have a hard time letting people of mixed racial backgrounds "embrace every aspect" of being "just who I am." In the story, titled "Why Barack Obama Could Be the Next President," reporter Joe Klein compared Obama to Colin Powell, and employed the one-drop assumption: "Powell and Obama have another thing in common: they are black people who -- like Tiger Woods, Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan -- seem to have an iconic power over the American imagination because they transcend racial stereotypes." Although Obama and Woods are both multiracial, Klein referred to them solely as Black and even as "iconic" African-Americans.
What Race Is, and Isn't
Historically, race has been treated as a natural category for classifying human beings. The assumption that people can be grouped into distinct races has political overtones and motives. Activities such as slavery, domination, and oppression have been justified in large part by claims that those who dominate are inherently different (and superior) to those they dominate. Modern science, however, has shown that this system for classifying people has little if any basis in biology or genetics.
According to the current position on race of the American Anthropological Association, drafted in 1998, "The concept of race is a social and cultural construction... Race simply cannot be tested or proven scientifically ... It is clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. The concept of 'race' has no validity ... in the human species." According to the U.S. Census Bureau, race is "self-identification by people according to the race or races with which they most closely identify. These categories are sociopolitical constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature. Furthermore, the race categories include both racial and national-origin groups." When speaking of human genetic variations, scientists today study "populations" rather than "races," a more precise term that avoids the misleading assumption that superficial characteristics such as skin color group automatically with other characteristics such as intelligence or character. In everyday life, however, "race" is still the most commonly used term and the most widely accepted concept.
Barack Obama's life experience makes him a particularly interesting case study in the problems inherent in trying to classify people by race. Obama is the son of a Kenyan man who came to study in the U.S. He was born and raised by his white maternal family in multiracial, multiethnic Hawai'i, and spent a portion of his young life living in Indonesia. He is "Black" in the sense that he has an African father, but his experience growing up is quite different from that of a "typical" African American. Of course, the idea that there is a "typical" African American experience is itself rather suspect. Generations have passed since the first Africans arrived on American shores, and many African Americans have a variety of non-African ancestors with Native American, Caucasian or other roots. Ironically, therefore, Obama's mixed ancestry may be the most "typical" characteristic he shares with other African Americans.
We're Not There Yet
Even when Obama's mixed racial background is mentioned, the one-drop assumptions and default terms come into play. In a November 8, 2008 article titled "'Mutts Like Me' -- Obama Shows Ease Discussing Race," writer Alan Fram focuses on a comment that the president-elect made about what type of puppy his girls would bring to the White House with them. "Obviously, a lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me," Obama said. Fram seems to be getting to the heart of the matter, saying "The message seemed clear -- here is a president who will be quite at ease discussing race, a complex issue as unresolved as it is uncomfortable for many to talk about openly. And at a time when whites in the country are not many years from becoming the minority." However, old habits die hard. Fram also says, "By now, almost everyone knows that Obama's mother was white and father was black, putting him on track to become the nation's first African-American president."
Should embracing the multiracial background of people like Barack Obama or Tiger Woods take away from the pride and sense of accomplishment that different communities take in his achievements? Is it really less of a victory for Blacks if Obama's mixed race is acknowledged and celebrated? In a November 10, 2008, article for Salon.com titled "Our Biracial President," James Hannaham wrote, "Obama's biracial. ... This is not to say that he hasn't received some of the same treatment as black Americans, or that he is not welcome among them, or that people should denigrate his need to make his background understandable to people who think that 'biracial' means a type of airplane. It suggests something far less divisive. It means that black and white people (not to mention other ethnicities chained to the binary idiocy of American race relations) can share his victory equally."
In 1967, there were still sixteen U.S. states that had laws on the books banning interracial marriage. That isn't a typo -- 1967. It was in that year that the US. Supreme Court unanimously struck down laws banning interracial marriages with these words: "The freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides within the individual and cannot be infringed on by the State." Barack Obama's parents met, married, and gave birth to him in Hawai'i in the early 1960s. It is a matter of chance that they were not in one of the states where interracial marriage and sex was illegal. In addition, the 2000 U.S. census was the first one in which respondents could choose to identify themselves as belonging to more than a single race. Given that recent history, perhaps we could all celebrate how far we have come by electing a biracial President.
17 Comments so far
Show All"In 1967, there were still sixteen U.S. states that had laws on the books banning interracial marriage. That isn't a typo -- 1967. It was in that year that the US. Supreme Court unanimously struck down laws banning interracial marriages with these words: "The freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides within the individual and cannot be infringed on by the State.""
It's 2008 and it is still more important who you sleep with than anything else. Blacks where great for cannon fodder during the wars, great as athletes to make white team owners a bunch of money, great at building crap for little to no pay.
But not good enought to have sex with or marry a white woman.
Now we think it is ok to say men can't marry men, or women can't marry women. LOL. I bet if I went into someone's house and said I don't think a man and a woman should have sex more than 1 time a month they would have a fit. So what makes them think they can go into someone elses house and control there love life?
But killing people is perfectly ok to do
Silly Silly Silly.
O Rei de Reis
O-rei-de-Reis.Blogspot.com
"The concept of race is a social and cultural construction... Race simply cannot be tested or proven scientifically ... It is clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. The concept of 'race' has no validity ... in the human species."
When I studied the history of anthropology and biological classification, I figured this out, too. It seemed obvious to me that race held no ontological terrors -- but try arguing this point with people who are committed to the social and cultural construction. In a theology class I argued as part of a small group that race was a social and cultural construction and should not be held to define individuals -- and the self-identifying Black students in the class argued vociferously against me that race was a significant identifier. I have come to understand that their commitment to Black identity is an important construction in opposition to institutional racism, but I wish we could talk about it with more clarity.
Full disclosure -- I would be easily identified as a white girl.
I imagine a future in which skin color or the social and cultural construction of race is not the primary identifier -- that we are able to let it go, all of us, and use other factors to identify one another. I don't think we'll get rid of prejudice, but if we can tackle this prejudice and make it meaningless, then maybe we can continue to tackle other prejudices, and treat each other with justice and equality. I fear, however, that without clear dialogue and a brave confrontation with existing injustice and inequality, it will always be easier to fall back on broad classifications and prejudices.
I'm afraid that Obama's election will not lessen racism.
It has most definitely put an end to the 'powerlessness' of minorities. Did you see the looks on kid's faces as they watched videos of Obama's victory speech from Tues. night?
Their expressions of hope and 'YES, I CAN were priceless sights to behold.
Nothing can ever change those moments - the genie is out of the bottle for good!!!
Obama will most assuredly disappoint many of his supporters, but that will not change what has already taken place. His election alone has changed the landscape.
We can only hope he will make wise decisions and change the course of our policies as well. He did bring that element to the table - HOPE!
But I could be wrong !
It is common practice in the US to refer to someone as "black" who has at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry. When a person of mixed-race encounters a racist in, say, a job interview, they do not get partial credit for their white half: they are treated as "black". Hence the term is used to describe a historically oppressed minority, mixed-race or not.
The author quotes, "The concept of 'race' has no validity ... in the human species." So what, is this what the taxi driver is thinking who leaves the black man standing in the rain?
My point is that the term "black" is used for a person who belongs to a class that has been historically and presently discriminated against, mainly because of the way they look, and partially other qualities such as speech or social context. The term is defined by how it is used in society, not by some scientific rule.
flash
I am an American of African, Native American, and European ancestry who has lived all over this country for the nearly 60 years that I have been alive. As a lifelong anti-racism activist, and an educator for 23 years deeply involved in issues of multiculturalism, I am acutely aware of the various reasons why many of us dismiss the scientifically confirmed invalidity of the race paradigm in favor of drawing attention to the sociological reality of race and racism. No need to list them all, but I'll just say that I understand and sympathize with the reasons why historically oppressed people have experienced personal empowerment, cultural cohesion, and community direction through re-defining race rather than simply rejecting the whole archaic paradigm. There are scientific truths, experiential truths, and sociological truths.
But at some point we have to admit that scientific truth really does matter, and must ultimately re-direct human myth-making and cultural norms. Six hundred years ago nearly all Europeans believed that the earth is flat and that the sun and stars all revolved around it. Educational curricula, civil and religious law, and some aspects of human behavior and cultural customs were built on that widespread belief. Sailors would not venture too far out into the Atlantic for fear of falling over the edge. Eventually, after much resistance, struggle, persecution, and finally, re-education, the sociological and cultural "reality" regarding a flat earth had to yield to scientific fact. What will it take for us to come to the point when we will be able to find personal empowerment, cultural cohesion, and a strong sense of identity and direction without the need for retaining the erroneous, archaic, colonialist paradigm of "the races of man?" We would not necessarily have to give up culture. Culture and race are two very different entities. The only aspect of American culture that we may need to lose is the part that confuses and needlessly intertwines culture and "race."
flash: some people are clinging to the division(s). You make many interesting points. I am a bit older than you, apropos of nothing. I notice that I always refer to myself as Jew, although I have a grandmother who was half WASP.
You make a good point, bidelo. As a young child I felt guilty knowing I lived in a country where I would be treated better simply because the fates decreed that I should be born with white skin. Of course, those who by the "grace of god" happen to be born rich have far more advantages than I and most of the rest of us. I moved to Hawaii, married a woman of color and have a mixed race child. If I'd started having children at the age of Sarah Palin's daughter, I might have had a son Barak Obama's age. When I look at him I see a beautiful young man who is today the pride (or envy) of the vast majority of those who know of him, who is blessed by the heavens with a goddess for a wife and children who make tears of joy come to my eyes just watching them. Thanks to Barak Obama and his family, that "one drop" may come to be a badge of honor for Americans, assuring mixed race people a unique role in a brave new American society.
DNA mapping has traced all of humanity back to common ancestors in northern africa...any discussions of race are discussions of rather insignificant mutations\divisions in the human DNA code since then, as we're all still vastly the same, almost identical, from a DNA standpoint...the simple fact is, we're all cousins, and all sharing a single planet with common air and water supplies...by the way, there isn't much difference, percentage-wise, between the DNA of a human and that of other animals, really, which should give you cause for pause, but probably won't...humans are so prejudiced toward, and limited by, their eyesight...
bildab Blacks have persevered through all the decades of persecution in America by developing racial pride, not by feeling guilty at having black skin.
It appears that, indeed, that there exists a black subsculture which has enabled blacks to communicate with one another in a common understanding of resentment and opposition to the oppressing white population, and which is not to be destroyed by the fortuitous election of a black man to the presidency, although that is undeniable an incredibly important event. But many whites are as stupidly and viciously committed to America's long-accepted racial intolerance as they ever were. It's nothing surprising that some people have responded to the Obama election by painting swastikas on autos, etc. This scum will be around for a while and we still have to deal with them, heaven help us.
All these wonderful discussions with a disregard for the reality of survival. Humans are dangerous,territorial, and hard wired to recognize threats. It is a matter of survival in many parts of the world. For instance, in Belfast the Prods and the Paddys can quickly indentify each other. To me they look and sound the same.
In the Army in the 60' the Black soldiers were "tight". Their social ties went far beyond their squad, platoon and company. To me, a White sodier, it seemed every Black knew every other Black on Post while most White soldiers had few contacts outside their units. It was a dangerous time and place. You can argue the right and wrong of it forever but, if you want to stay safe, you learn from where danger comes. Often your first clue is skin color regardless of what hue yours may be.
We can discuss breaking down barriers forever without one inch of progress. Only when people don't fear for their personal safety will you have progress.
I think the solution, at least in this country, is effective, impartial police who target and smack down violence, threats, and intimidation. Where the police are the problem focus on changing the police culture.
One day "race" will not be an issue. In reality whites are "modified" mutant blacks since the entirety of humanity traces their ancestry to black Africans. Most whites merely lack the receptor for the melanocyte stimulating hormone.
Obama's Hawaii upbringing is significant since that multi-cultural, multi-racial society does not react to issues of "race" the same as most of the continental US.
It is most interesting to see this author make repeated use of the term African-American but not European-American...always "white" instead. I have a practice of parallel usage. COLOR- Black-White-Red-Yellow....CONTINENT- African (or Afro)-American, European (or Euro-American), Asian-American, Native North American,......or nation such as -Swedish-American, Japanese American, Iroquoian, etc.....or region South Asian-American, East Asian-American, West African-American, Northern European, etc.
Parallel usage has its limits however. Where do Latinos/as fit in? Or Jews? But overall, I find it useful to practice this approach.
Oh and in some contexts, American needs to be replaced with "U.S.er." Anyone have an alternative to that moniker that works for them?
amberwaves:I'm an older Jew and have always thought of Jews as separate from "white" category. That is backed up in the recent voting:78% of Jews voted for Obama and much less "whites" voted for Obama. I have noticed that many callers to radio station WBAI of the Pacifica network do the same.
Historically, a couple of points: Hitler went back a few generations and it was German policy that a Jewish grandparent made one a Jew. Ironically, I have noticed that the Catholic Church has a bishop, or archbishop who converted to Catholicism from Jewish religion of his birth family and considers himself a Jew. I also noticed that the Catholic Church is claiming a Jewish woman by birth, who I think also converted, as a Jewish saint in progress.
I am near the age Obama's mother would be, if she lived. I have been particularly fascinated by Stanley Ann Dunham. There's a wonderful article by Janny Scott, either from the NYTimes or International Herald Tribune (www.iht.com)on March 14, 2008. There hasn't been much coverage of how much of a democratic person Obama's mother was. I dated interracially at about the same time as Obama's mother married his father. The US is obsessed by color going back to our ugly history involving slavery, Jim Crow and institutional racism, still ongoing:from education to police brutality.
I celebrate Obama's win, by such a big vote. I am enjoying how happy African-Americans are. So many people from the NYC area are going to DC for the inauguration. And I refer to myself as American or Jew, never Jewish-American or American-Jew.
Dafoe
How about a simple amendment that no majority group can force its rule on a minority group. It works to a greater degree up north so I am told, it really started as an agreement between two leaders of two disparate groups, the French Canadian and the English Canadian back about 150 years ago. It made it possible and advantageous to create the Canadian nation. One should try it here, oh it won't settled the hatred /dislike nutured by demogogues for the past 2 centuries but it will put a stop to the political practice of playing one against the other. You can only have Peace with Justice and Justice in this nation has been decidely lacking witness the latest "warfare" in the california referendum, dum it was or the blatant placing of obstacles to voting placed in certain areas of some states all done under that apartheid euphemism of "states rights".
Here's a thought that I haven't seen expressed yet. A whole lot of "white" people voted for Barack Obama. I think I speak for a significant number of those "white" people. We don't care what color his skin is! We don't care if he's half black, half white, striped, or spotted. We want a competent man to do the best job he can do as president of the United States!
So media people...why don't you just shut the hell up about race and talk about the job that needs to be done.
My mortgage is 3 weeks past due and it looks like it won't get caught up till after the New Year. If I still have a job.
I won't have enough money to buy Christmas gifts for my wife or parents because I'll only have enough for the grandkids. Maybe.
I don't have any health insurance.
My 10 year old Toyota is wearing down fast.
I don't care about your petty arguments about Obama's skin color, heritage, historical significance or anything else except is he gonna do a good job and make things a little better for us working poor people. Maybe spread a little wealth in my direction.
And if he can do something about AIG executives and their luxury meetings that would be nice too. Since it's my money!!!!
And since I'm going down that fantasy road, I wish he could send Bush to prison and maybe a public flogging of Cheney.
But that's the past. Let's leave it and get on with things.
I want an electric car that recharges from the wind and sun. I think all that machinery should be made in the USA. I don't mean assembled with Chinese components. I mean designed, cast, forged, heat treated, fabricated, powder coated and assembled in the U.S. by Americans. And all those factories should be powered by wind and sun. All the windmills and solar panels made in the U.S. Anyone see where this is going?
Hell! I was supposed to be living on Mars right now and maybe planning a trip to the next solar system. Instead AIG executives have all that money tied up in their personal investments. And they're getting millions in bonuses! And they don't care about science, or pollution, or global warming/destabilization. They care about money!
Media people! Wake up! Get in the game! Subjects that matter. Economy. Jobs. Health. Overpopulation.
There's a long list of things to discuss that are much more important than Obamas white/blackness.
Please.......can't we all stop talking so much and actually get something done?
I once read what is supposed to be a Polynesian tale:
When God made the first man, he was busy because there were still some stars and things that needed to be put up -- sooo, he burnt the first batch an they were black.
With the next try, God had more time and sat by the oven and, like inexperienced cooks sometimes do, took the next batch out too early -- sooo, this time the result was a bit pasty, that is, white.
The third time, God got it right and it was the Polynesians...
Take for what it's worth, but don't forget the grain of salt.
____________
There's a glory in the morning because the earth turns 'round and a promise in the evening when the sun goes down
I found this article very informative because I had just wrote a blog about the selfsame topic. I've added this new found info as an update to the blog. I used the American Indian though as a role model for what "officially" constitutes an American Indian as Indian. This is how they figure out who gets to share in the Indian Casino profits I believe and becomes vitally important in proving your bloodline.
I also find these comments and discussion fascinating in that when we examine Barack Obama's "roots" will we also find out he was an "OOPs" baby and therefore all unplanned kids whould have hope that they too can become president or a "somebody" This sounds mean spirited...but it's not intended to be. It's intended to be real.
Yes, we have come a long way baby in that regard.