Mixed Race Studies

Negroes: Miscegenation

Time Magazine
1923-07-23

Protests of Negro organizations from many parts of the country, descending about the ears of a Senator, caused him to change his mind. Senator [Arthur] Capper of Kansas is leader of the farm bloc and of the “marriage bloc”—if such a thing there is. In the last Congress he brought forward a Constitutional Amendment and a supplementary bill to make marriage and divorce laws uniform throughout the country. One of the provisions of the bill prohibited ” marriage between members of the white and black races or of the white and yellow races.” Letters of protest—from Negroes have since poured in upon Senator Capper, threatening, not least of all, political revenge.

Accordingly, Senator Capper decided to amend his bill by striking out the passage which is “unnecessarily offending to the Negro population.” Many states have laws against miscegenation, and the Senator regards the provision as an unnecessary troublemaker. The withdrawal of this section by the Senator is made easier because he himself did not write the bill. It was drawn by the attorney of the American Federation of Women’s Clubs…

Read the entire article here.

Are we all ‘coloured’?

News 24 (South Africa)
2011-03-09

Max Du Preez

We really need to find new terminology for the different population groups in South Africa, especially now that we’re moving back into a political culture of obsession with race.

Problem One: if “coloured” means people of mixed blood, then the vast majority of people born in South Africa are coloureds, myself included.

Studies in the 1980s have found that white Afrikaners have an average of seven percent “black” blood, mostly because of early relationships and marriages between white settlers and slaves or Khoisan. Some Afrikaners, like my family, have considerably more than seven percent black blood.

This is also true of black South Africans. Three quick examples: ANC veteran Walter Sisulu’s father was a white man; Winnie Mandela’s mother had light skin, blue eyes and long hair and her mother-in-law called her a mlungu; Nelson Mandela’s mitochondrial DNA was found to be pure Khoisan. There were many runaway slaves from the East Indies and European shipwreck survivors in the 16th, 17th and 18th century who became part of the Zulu and Xhosa peoples.

Problem Two: Probably a majority of people classified “coloured” during the apartheid years were descendants of the Khoikhoi and the San or Bushmen, with, of course, some white, slave and black blood. But when the ANC and other so-called Africanists refer to “Africans”, they exclude these people.

This is sheer madness: the descendants of the first peoples of southern Africa are excluded from the term African? The Khoisan were here thousands of years before the first black farming groups arrived from further north. They are the original Africans…

Read the entire editorial here.

Birthers’ shameful racist roots

The Boston Globe
2011-05-02

James Carroll

It was not up to President Obama to label the birther movement as racist in his extraordinary address on the subject last week, but plenty of commentary has done it for him. There can be no doubt that the lurid contempt shown to the president by antagonists who question his constitutional right to hold office is rooted in white-supremacist hysteria. The issue has never been the authenticity of documentation related to Barack Obama’s date and place of birth, which is why the production of birth certificates—first short, then long—has not stilled the controversy.

The issue has been his character as—well, as the issue of a Caucasian mother and an African father. An inch below the surface of this discussion is the perceived offense not just of blackness, but of miscegenation, that peculiarly demonic legacy of a slave system which took for granted the white owners’ sexual exploitation of slaves, while outlawing interracial sex. The biological fact of Obama’s existence, not the bureaucratic fact of government records, is what generates the lunatic rage…

Read the entire editorial here.

Breaking the Black-White Binary

Fathom: the source for online learning
Columbia University
2002

Gary Okihiro, Professor of International and Public Affairs
Columbia University

Where do Asians fall in the American construct of race? According to Gary Okihiro, the director of Columbia University’s Center for Race and Ethnicity, the position of Asians has had to be invented and reinvented over the past two centuries to fit into a binary, black-white national racial definition

Gary Okihiro: In the US, the racial formation is a binary of black and white. In fact, there is actually mainly black. White is frequently not seen as a racial category; it is simply the normative. Blackness is race. And when today we deploy the term “minority,” for example, we mean basically African-Americans. I think binaries are simpleminded ways of categorizing not just people but also things, objects other than oneself. Binaries provide a kind of coherence. They allow for a simple and straightforward explanation of who one is and who one is not. And so this binary of who one is, which is whiteness, and who one is not, which is blackness, in this case affords a kind of self-definition and also a privilege that authorizes one to define the other.

Now, Asians and Latinos and other racialized minorities who do not fit into that black-white binary pose a problem for that kind of racialized thinking. The binary itself, by the way, is very functional. Obviously it is an invention, first of all. Who is white, for example, is an invention, and the category “white” is an elastic one. It includes different peoples at different times; for example, at some point Irish people were not included within the category “white” within the United States. Similarly, the category “black” is an invented category and is also an elastic one…

Read the entire interview here.

Five Myths About Multiracial People in the U.S.

About.com: Race Relations
2011-04-09

Nadra Kareem Nittle

When Barack Obama set his sights on the presidency, newspapers suddenly began devoting a lot more ink to the multiracial identity. Media outlets from Time Magazine and the New York Times to the British-based Guardian and BBC News pondered the significance of Obama’s mixed heritage. His mother was a white Kansan and his father, a black Kenyan. Three years later it remains to be seen just what impact Obama’s biracial makeup has had on race relations, but mixed-race people continue to make news headlines, thanks to the U.S. Census Bureau’s finding that the country’s multiracial population is exploding. But just because mixed-race people are in the spotlight doesn’t mean that the myths about them have vanished. What are the most common misconceptions about multiracial identity? This list both names and dispels them.

Multiracial People Are Novelties

What’s the fastest-growing group of young people? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the answer is multiracial youths. Today, the United States includes more than 4.2 million children identified as multiracial. That’s a jump of nearly 50 percent since the 2000 census. And among the total U.S. population, the amount of people identifying as multiracial spiked by 32 percent, or 9 million. In the face of such groundbreaking statistics, it’s easy to conclude that multiracial people are a new phenomenon now rapidly growing in rank. The truth is, however, that multiracial people have been a part of the country’s fabric for centuries. Consider anthropologist Audrey Smedley’s finding that the first child of mixed Afro-European ancestry was born in the U.S. eons ago—way back in 1620. There’s also the fact that historical figures from Crispus Attucks to Jean Baptiste Pointe Du Sable to Frederick Douglass were all mixed-race.

A major reason why it appears that the multiracial population has soared is because for years and years, Americans weren’t allowed to identify as more than one race on federal documents such as the census. Specifically, any American with a fraction of African ancestry was deemed black due to the “one-drop rule.” This rule proved particularly beneficial to slave owners, who routinely fathered children with slave women. Their mixed-race offspring would be considered black, not white, which served to increase the highly profitable slave population.

The year 2000 marked the first time in ages that multiracial individuals could identify as such on the census. By that point in time, though, much of the multiracial population had grown accustomed to identifying as just one race. So, it’s uncertain if the number of multiracials is actually soaring or if ten years after they were first permitted to identify as mixed-race, Americans are finally acknowledging their diverse ancestry…

Read the entire article here.

Responsible Mixed Race Politics

How do identities matter?
Stanford University
2005-01-13

Presentation by:

Ronald Sundstrom, Associate Professor of African American Studies
University of San Francisco

The harshest critics of mixed-race have claimed that the identity is self-indulgent and irresponsible, because it evades or, worse, is complicit in racism. Such strident condemnations of mixed-race identity are dogmatic and uncharitable. In “Being & Being Mixed Race,” I argued that mixed-race is a real social identity and that it need not be morally illegitimate. In this essay I return to the topic of the relationship between mixed-race identity and politics and the dynamics of racism. There are disturbing trends in mixed-race literature and organizations that precisely are irresponsible in the way critics of the mixed-race movement have asserted. I criticize these developments, and counter that mixed-race individuals and groups have a special obligation to resist racism and to refuse the “wages of whiteness” that accrue from their mixed-race status. Although all persons have a moral obligation to reject and resist racism, mixed-race individuals and groups have special obligations that are based on their own experience of race and racism, and their place in the history and experience of race and racism in America. Just as mixed-race persons argue that they are morally obligated to remember and affirm their complex family histories-to not forget their mothers-they have an equal obligation to remember the significance of their personal history in the history of race in America: we have an equal obligation to the memories of our grandmothers.

Linda Martín-Alcoff: Visible Identities: Race, Gender and the Self [Review]

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
2006-06-22

Linda Martín-Alcoff, Visible Identities: Race, Gender and the Self, Oxford University Press, 2006, 326pp., ISBN 0195137353.

Ronald Sundstrom, Associate Professor of African American Studies
University of San Francisco

Linda Martín Alcoff’s book, Visible Identities, offers a conception of social identities that collects together her work on the metaphysics, epistemology, and politics of ethnicity, race, and gender. The idea of visibility has a unifying role in Alcoff’s metaphysical and epistemological account of those social identities. Likewise, visible is what social identities should be in Alcoff’s vision of political life. Visible identities, according to Alcoff, are a resource in a pluralistic democracy, and are not to be eschewed for a simple American identity beyond hyphens, race, ethnicity, and gender difference. That political point is the fundamental point of this book, and it is delivered through Alcoff’s metaphysical analysis of race, ethnicity, and gender.

Alcoff’s attempt to make a political argument through metaphysical analysis immediately calls to mind the distinction between those two areas of inquiry and their presumed separateness. Richard Rorty captured this distinction by framing it in terms of the two questions “what are we?” and “who are we?” The first question is concerned with metaphysics, while the latter is political. The “who are we?” question seeks to discover some unifying thing or idea that, in Rorty’s words, “makes us less like a mob and more like an army.” Rorty’s point, in part, was that those questions were distinct and that an answer to the first did not determine the answer to the second. Answers to the “who” question are always hopeful, for they point to not what we are but who we hope to be. Thus, the political question is a constituting one that points to an ongoing formative project, and it requires the political community to work through time to achieve their collective ideal identity. Who the US should hope to be, according to Rorty, is a nation that “achieves” its constitutional ideals by learning the necessary lessons from the Civil Rights and Feminist movements, yet not losing focus on the political process of building a national moral community that takes primary pride in its collective national identity.

Alcoff would disagree with the completeness of the distinction that Rorty drew. She argues in Visible Identities that “what” we are, as well as “where” we are—in terms of our social location—has political implications, although not the deterministic implications that racial nationalists would desire. Furthermore, she clearly disagrees with the condition regarding identity that is required by Rorty’s great left liberal hope: that strongly felt identities be put aside in favor of a unifying national identity…

…Other features of Alcoff’s account of social identities are familiar ideas in debates about the metaphysics of social identities. She defends a dialogical account of the self that incorporates her use of hermeneutics and phenomenology, and argues that individuals participate in multiple and hybrid identities. Of course, the familiarity of the latter idea is due in no small part to the influence that her essay “Mestizo Identity” has had on race theory. That essay is renamed, “On Being Mixed,” and is the twelfth chapter of Visible Identities. The upshot of these features of her account is to further weaken the three objections she analyzes, especially the assumption that such identities lead to narrow, isolated, and separated self-conceptions that undermine national political life…

…Alcoff’s account of identity exposes important features of “visible identities” that make them radically particular experiences. While she places the social identities she analyzes within the context of group interaction, her emphasis on hybridity and multiplicity allows for enough divergence so that three problems with identity are avoided. This feature of her account is developed in her discussion of mixed race and mestizo identity. She also, however, reminds us that these complex and radically particular identities have historically served as points of political organization, and argues that they should engender larger political participation. Alcoff develops this line of thought in the first chapter, as well as in her chapters on Latino and mixed race identity. In that analysis she avoids, however, the dangers of the institutionalization of those identities, which precisely lead to critiques of identity politics. Groups become centers of power that seek social reproduction and offer measures to encourage loyalty, compel membership, and exclude those who exercise their individual autonomy by not conforming to the group’s will. They seek to suppress the very multiplicity and hybridity which Alcoff depends upon to save identity from the criticisms of liberals. For the sake of their own visibility, groups engender the invisibility of other embodied identities…

Read the entire review here.

Editorial: Implications of racial distinctions for body composition and its diagnostic assessment

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Volume 71, Number 6 (June 2000)
pages 1387-1389
Print ISSN: 0002-9165; Online ISSN: 1938-3207

Noel W. Solomons, Scientific Director and co-Founder
Center for Studies of Sensory Impairment, Aging and Metabolism (CeSSIAM)

Shiriki Kumanyika, Professor of Epidemiology
University of Pennsylvania

In a truly just and equitable society, the welfare of all would be fulfilled. In a “colorblind” society, the health and nutritional needs of few would be satisfied. A conservative trend toward “colorblindness” in the public and political domain (eg, efforts to end affirmative action) emanates from tactics to hide the social stratification barriers that continue to preclude the full achievement of equity. Public health scientists and social epidemiologists entertain colorblindness as a defense against nonsensical ethnic comparisons that might, inadvertently, perpetuate rather than help to redress effects of racism (1). However, colorblindness denies the reality that people do come in different shades and that these shades have been a basis for much social stratification and discrimination—often with a premium on being lighter-skinned or white (2).

In their comprehensive review article in this issue, “Measures of body composition in blacks and whites: a comparative review,” Wagner and Heyward (3) have done a service for the readership by highlighting differences in various measures of body composition between people designated as ‘black’ or ‘white.’ By reviewing, accepting, and publishing the treatise, the Journal has also served its readers well with respect to fostering a continued discourse on this troublesome issue of how ‘race’ influences the science and applications of nutrition. “Race is inconvenient for objectivity-seeking scientists, because it is an ill-defined, misused, and politically-charged concept (2).” Nevertheless, as we noted previously (4–6), being able to entertain—with eyes wide-open and with rigorous methods—scientific hypotheses about differences between people of European and African heritage has important, enduring public health implications. Avoiding the issue of race or approaching racial issues timidly might make for convenient politics, but it may result in bad science and even worse policy.

Wagner and Heyward (3) portray the ambiguities in the interplay among evolving body-composition techniques and different amounts and densities of fat, muscle, and skeleton across ‘races’ in black and white relief. On close reading, their point is not so much that blacks and whites are different, but that the way that body-composition techniques are used requires more attention to human diversity. They acknowledge that the monolithic classifications of whiteness and blackness obscure biological experiences and differentiation, and that the concept of distinct (ie, genetically homogenous) racial subgroups among humans has now been rejected in the field of anthropology. It is worth commenting further on what these observed differences between blacks and whites might actually signify on a strictly biological level. For example, most of the studies reviewed by Wagner and Heyward contrast blacks and whites from North America, yet to generalize the findings from US black and white subpopulations to those of Europeans and Africans is too far a stretch of the scientific imagination. Cross-cultural studies within populations of African descent cited by Wagner and Heyward (3) show clearly that ‘black’ subjects in the United States are not identical to their contemporary Caribbean and West African brethren.

…The US Census Bureau once attempted to capture the reality of admixture between people of African and European descent by including the designation mulatto (a person who was three-eighths to five-eighths black), quadroon (a person who was one-quarter black), and octoroon (a person who was one-eighth black) (7). However, throughout most of American history, the conventional “racial” semantics have favored a binary schema in which people with any identifiable proportion of African ancestry were classified as ‘black’ and in which a rather heterogeneous set of light-skinned people were classified as ‘white’ (7). Thus, what began as the stark polarization of “freeman” or “slave” in colonial America has remained in binary terms throughout postbellum history. This lumping of all people with any African ancestry together as ‘blacks’—although not done universally, eg, in Brazil—has never been challenged successfully in the United States, perhaps because of a fundamental resistance to acknowledging that admixture has occurred between people of African and European descent from slavery onward. As a reminder, we have the recent controversy over whether Thomas Jefferson’s descendants from his slave consort should be admitted to the Jefferson family burial grounds to eternally rest beside descendants of his Anglo, patrician wife. The Howard University sociologist E Franklin Frazier, a prominent dissenter of binary polarization, proposed the 3 classifications black proletariat, brown middle class, and yellow aristocracy (8). This classification system, while capturing a real stratification within the African-American population, was also a not-so-subtle commentary on the direct relation of admixture with European blood to social status. The binary classification may be salient for describing the effective social meaning of ‘race’ in US society—privilege associated with not having and disadvantage associated with having African ancestry…

Read the entire editorial here.

Reliability of race assessment based on the race of the ascendants: a cross-sectional study

BMC Public Health
Volume 2, Number 1 (2002-01-16)
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-2-1
5 pages

Sandra C. Fuchs
Department of Social Medicine, School of Medicine
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Sylvia M. Guimarães
Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Cristine Sortica
School of Medicine
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Fernanda Wainberg
School of Medicine
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Karine O. Dias
School of Medicine
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Mariana Ughini
School of Medicine
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

José Augusto S. Castro
Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Flavio D. Fuchs
Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Race is commonly described in epidemiological surveys based on phenotypic characteristics. Training of interviewers to identify race is time-consuming and self identification of race might be difficult to interpret. The aim of this study was to determine the agreement between race definition based on the number of ascendants with black skin colour, with the self-assessment and observer’s assessment of the skin colour.

…Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted on a sample of 50 women aged 14 years or older, which were systematically selected from an outpatient clinics of a University affiliated hospital in Porto Alegre, southern Brazil. Participants included in the study answered to a pre-tested and structured questionnaire, which collected information on the number of black ascendants (parents and grandparents), school attendance, and included a self-assignment of the colour of skin as well as the observer assessment of skin colour.
 
In a preliminary phase, a training was provided to the observers to standardise the identification of the skin colour and in the details of several phenotypic characteristics employed in Brazil before [10] such as the colour of hair, lines and hands’ palm surface. Following the training, the principal investigator and the research assistants observed 28 women and compared their findings of the physical features. The research team reached full agreement for skin colour (white, mixture or black), hair colour (blonde, light brown, medium brown, dark brown or black), lines and hands’ palm surface (pink palm and colourless lines, pink palm and red lines or white palm and dark lines) for the last 15 women observed. We also investigated the race of ascendants, through the question: “Which are the race of your ascendants: parents and grandparents?”. A total of six research assistants were certified for the study.
 
During the study, after the informed consent was obtained, one interviewer applied the questionnaire asking questions to the participants and the research team independently registered the information on physical characteristics, observing the women under sunlight. All interviewers were blinded to each other answers. Skin colour was described by the observers as white, mixed or black, the self-assigned skin colour used white, black, mixed, and local words meaning light mulatto and dark mulatto. The race of the parents and grandparents was investigate using a heredogram, which incorporated two generations to the assess the inheritance. Even though information could be reported for a maximum of six ascendants some women did not know the father or grandparents. Therefore, we collapsed the categories with more than 3 ascendants of black origin in the category of at least three black ascendants. There was investigated a sample of 50 women, which did not include the 28 women at the training phase. This sample size was sufficient to detect an agreement of at least 85%, with an error of 10%, and a confidence interval of 95%. In order to calculate the kappa coefficients, self-reported mixed skin colour was collapsed with light mulatto and dark mulatto. Analysis were carried out through Chi-square for contingency tables and kappa statistics to calculate to what extent the observers agreed beyond what we would expect by chance alone [15]. Kappa coefficients were calculated from observation of six interviewers and the skin colour self-assigned by the participant. The Kappa statistic was calculated for each two categories (white vs. non white; black vs. non black and mixed vs. non mixed) and a global Kappa with 95% confidence interval for all three categories. Kappa greater than 0.75 was taken as an excellent agreement, between 0.75 and 0.40 intermediate to good agreement, and below 0.40, poor agreement. The reliability of self-assigned black, mixed, or white skin colour with the number of black ascendants was obtained by weighted kappa. Weights were giving to the frequencies in each cell of the table according to their distance from the diagonal that indicates agreement [16]. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of our Institution and all participants gave their informed consent to participate…

Read the entire article here.

Y-STR diversity and ethnic admixture in White and Mulatto Brazilian population samples

Genetics and Molecular Biology (Former title: Brazilian Journal of Genetics)
Volume 29, Number 4 (São Paulo  2006)
pages 605-607
DOI: 10.1590/S1415-47572006000400004
ISSN 1415-4757

Luzitano Brandão Ferreira
Departamento de Genética, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto
Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil

Celso Teixeira Mendes-Junior
Departamento de Genética, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto
Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil

Cláudia Emília Vieira Wiezel
Departamento de Genética, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto
Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil

Marcelo Rizzatti Luizon
Departamento de Genética, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto
Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil

Aguinaldo Luiz Simões
Departamento de Genética, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto
Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil

We investigated 50 Mulatto and 120 White Brazilians for the Y-chromosome short tandem repeat (Y-STR) markers (DYS19, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392 and DYS393) and found 79 different haplotypes in the White and 35 in the Mulatto sample. Admixture estimates based on allele frequencies showed that the admixture of the white sample was 89% European, 6% African and 5% Amerindian while the Mulatto sample was 93% European and 7% African. Results were consistent with historical records of the directional mating between European males and Amerindian or African females.

The Brazilian population is a result of interethnic crosses of Europeans, Africans and Amerindians, and is one of the most heterogeneous populations in the world. When the first European colonizers arrived (1500 AD), 1-5 million Amerindians already lived in the region that now is known as Brazil (Salzano and Callegari-Jacques, 1988). Before 1820, European colonization was almost exclusively composed of Portuguese while between 1820 and 1975 the great majority of immigrants were from Portugal and Italy, followed by a small number by people from Spain, Germany, Syria and Japan (Carvalho-Silva et al., 2001). Between the 16th and 19th centuries approximately 3.5 million Africans were brought as slaves to Brazil, coming mainly from West, West-Central and Southeast Africa (Curtin, 1969). The colonization of Brazil involved mostly European men, many of whom produced children with Amerindian and African females.

Although the classification of races is wrong from genetic standpoint (Templeton, 1998), Brazilians are classified for census purposes based on color. According to the last Brazilian government census of the 170 million Brazilians, 84 million were males, of which 52% were White, 39% were Brown, 6% were Black and 3% were classified in other categories (IBGE, 2000). Mulatto is the term commonly used in Brazil to designate the offspring result from the union of White and Black people. We used five Y-chromosome short tandem repeat (Y-STR) markers, recognized as good markers for population studies, to investigate genetic polymorphism and ethnic admixture in White and Mulatto Brazilian population samples.

We investigated 170 healthy, unrelated, individuals seeking paternity investigation at the Ribeirão Preto University Hospital, in the city of Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo state, Southeastern Brazil. The race of the individuals in the sample was determined based on their biomedical records, 120 individuals being White and 50 Mulatto, from Ribeirão Preto and the surrounding towns…

Read the enire article here.