“Blogs enable a lot of folks who would otherwise not be in regular and direct communication to be in touch with each other whenever they feel like it, and surely that is a good thing (…)” -David A. Hollinger
This week, as two Murats, we’ll be taking a detailed look at David A.
Hollinger’s “The One Drop Rule & The One Hate Rule.” In the process, we
will not only tell you what’s going on but also try and help you have a better
grasp of its historical background, as well as discuss its present applications
and its relevance to our course material. So, what do those terms mean? Do they
only effect blacks in the US? Let’s find out.
PS: We wanted create some room for individual interpretation as well.
Although this text was written by both of us, there are bits that reflect only
what one of us think on the issue and they’re tagged as such.
The One Drop Rule
To understand the issue at hand here, one must first understand the
concept of hypodescent. Put simply,
hypodescent is a white American invention, one that decides who’s black. Disgustingly,
this formulated discrimination was even reflected in and supported by federal
and state legislature. Although the exact measurements differed from one state
to another, and from time to time, the central idea is that a certain amount of
“Negro” blood in one’s veins renders them entirely black. In Virginia, for
instance, the threshold was set at ¼ Negro blood. One drop you say? It’s when
you take hypodescent and introduce it to an intense regime of steroids and feed
it 5 tubes of protein powder every hour: Any amount of blackness makes you a
hundred percent black. That grand-grand-grandmother of yours that you didn’t
even know existed happened to be
black? Well, you are too. Don’t forget to hand over your rights on the way out,
see you.
"What are you?" they'd ask, head tilted and eyes squinted.
"Black," I'd reply.
"No... but like, what else are you? I know it's not all black."
"What are you?" they'd ask, head tilted and eyes squinted.
"Black," I'd reply.
"No... but like, what else are you? I know it's not all black."
Hollinger says “It is common
for people to say, "I'm half Irish and half Jewish" without one's
listener translating the declaration into terms other than the speaker's. But those who say things like "I'm half
Irish and half black" are generally understood really to be black, and
"I'm one-eighth African American" is not part of the genealogical
boasting that infuses American popular culture.” Gandhi says: “You must not
lose faith in humanity. Humanity is like an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean
are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.” Not super related to our topic but
it is at the same time; black blood, the “colored blood,” is dirty to many
Americans still today, we are not analyzing the past here. Throughout history,
white people argued so many times that the black race is mentally and
physically inferior to white, yet with one drop rule they are proving
otherwise. IF the white race was so superior to black how come a single drop,
or a single grand-grand parent can taint this superior gene pool? Shouldn’t it
be otherwise? Shouldn’t a single drop of white blood elevate the status of a
black person that is normally being undervalued by the society? Yes,
“hypocrisy” is indeed the word you’re looking for.
The
roots of this approach are entirely based on wealth, just like the very
existence of the country (“Free land across the ocean! We have absolutely no
idea what it is like! And the land doesn’t even belong to us, people actually
live there!” “Best deal ever, yay!”). One’s race used to determine his or her
rights to inherit property and land as well. Imagine the average slaveholder
with a few legitimate children and dozens had from his slaves. Surely, it would
be a disaster for those in power if those “extra” children could inherit his
wealth.
The One Hate rule and People of Color
Now
that we know what the first half of the title stands for, let’s take a look at
its second half: The One Hate Rule. Put simply, it is a way of
approaching white racism in the United States, dictating that each and every
single one of its victims have been and still are being discriminated in
identical ways. Well, guess what, they’re not. The problems that minorities
have been facing in the States differ tremendously from each other. A very
simple illustration would be the stereotypes created for Asians and African-Americans. This will be
well-reflected as we take a look at the issues of over and
underrepresentation. Expressions such as
“people of color” are a very good example of this phenomenon and are
problematic in some ways. (Remember George Carlin)
The
problems that the average Mexican-American face on a daily basis differ from
those that Asians or Blacks face, again on a daily basis. Furthermore, even
smaller parts of these groups will have entirely different experiences in the
land of the free, home of the burger-lover (We love burgers as well, just not
as much). Just think of how large of a continent Asia is. People from Japan,
China, Pakistan, India, Turkey and so on just can’t have the same experience in
the US. That’s just not happening. Period.
Genius Coming this Way: Beating
Racism in its Own Game
However,
the idea of one hate was embraced by minorities as well. This idea enabled them
to rally greater masses under a single banner and strengthened their struggle.
It wasn’t only a certain shade of black people that fought side by side during
the Civil Rights Movement, it was anyone with any sort of blackness willing to
join in. Smart, very smart.
Non-black
minorities were able to identify themselves and blacks under the single tag of
“minority” and therefore gained a substantial advantage in the struggle to
acquire equality. In fact, even Asians, who are doing better than Non-Hispanic
whites, were at some point eligible for affirmative action programs. Of course,
this did not last long and they were silently crossed off the list. If only the
US government could act as quickly on actually fighting discrimination.
But,
how could it? The government has also been participating in the One Hate
approach. A brilliant example here would be Bill Clinton’s “One America in the
21st Century”, where he ignores more details than he takes a look
at. The part of the report focusing on economic disadvantage is as ignorant as
it gets until you take a look at the footnotes. When the report claims that
there isn’t a huge economic gap between whites and blacks, it only takes a look
at income levels, ignoring wealth altogether. Sure, a group that has been
collection wealth all along since before the Declaration of Independence lives
on equal grounds as those who have been subjected to economic discrimination
since their arrival. But, in Clinton’s defense, this is mentioned in the
footnotes! You know, those small texts at the bottom that no one reads.
Additional
bit by Murat G:
“While as late as the early
1960s, spokespersons for Mexican Americans in Los Angeles made numerous
statements that their community wanted little to do with blacks in the same
city. However, in the late 1960s as political alliances were forged between black
advocacy organizations and organizations speaking for other descent groups;
including Mexicans. I am just hoping that everyone can appreciate the hypocrisy
of this situation. I believe that people have too much to gain from social
events such as this and the motivations for such movements are purely spiritual
or moral only in theory but completely economic in practice.”
Over and Underrepresentation
This is perhaps the easiest part of
the text to comprehend, but the most problematic at the same time if you try to
figure out its roots. Overrepresentation, say, in the field of high level
managerial positions will reveal itself in statistical data: There are tons of
Asian people in those positions, even though they’re a minority.
Underrepresentation, consequently, the exact opposite of that, a certain group
being rather hard to spot in the field examined. Think Asians in NBA.
Again we
are calling everyone here to see the hypocrisy. We often discuss things in
class so one-sidedly, that we tend to forget; this issue is nowhere near black
and white but has more shades of grey then the book. This issue, just like
million others is driven by socioeconomic and sociopolitical concerns of those
who are handling these cases. We see people in the media, people who we can
relate to, but they are not the ones that working for this in actuality. They
are just being used to suck our empathy; not that they don’t deserve it but
they are not the ones that are benefiting from it directly. Money mongers,
property owners, people who stand to make great deal of money and gain great
deal of political power are. We are not trying to undervalue the issue, and we
are truly not trying to disregard the blatant suffering of minorities. The
suffering is indeed there, but it is often abused.
Despite
having the same name, Murat and I (Well…) sometimes find ourselves not quite
agreeing and often defending opposite views. Please find below such a case,
where we will be presenting two different views on over and underrepresentation.
Feel free to join the discussion in the comments section!
Murat G:
Remedying
the abuse of nonblacks was almost an afterthought to remedying anti-black
racism. And Hollinger argues that “Nothing illustrates this fact more dramatically
than the lack of sustained public debate on the eligibility of immigrants and
their offspring for affirmative action.” Is this true? I don’t know, and I am
certainly not the first person to decide if it is true or not. But I am
inclined to say no because of what Hollinger later on goes to say; Asian
minorities, specifically Japanese. Everything had been taken away from Japanese
people during the World War 2, they have been imprisoned illegally with no
premise. They have been driven away from their homes and businesses yet they
are the one minority group which thrived more than any other. Why? Hollinger
doesn’t seem to be able to answer to that. He is aware of the problem and he
does more than pointing it out. He offers valuable insight by giving us the
Clinton’s initiative: “The proximity of Asian Americans to non-Hispanic
whites in one statistical sector after another is downplayed, ignored, or
concealed. Asian American success in overcoming the worst consequences of white
racism is the elephant in the advisory board's room.” Yet he doesn’t know the
reason why this has happened, why a race that was called non-white by the
Supreme Court (Japanese) was able to surpass a race that was considered white
by the US law (Mexicans). Hollinger calls it overrepresentation, however
Japanese were not represented as minorities and they didn’t pursue social
rights as any other race did. But they excelled in the society with their
household income, wealth, level of education and such. Was it all because of
the guilty conscience of American people after the H-bombs? I think it has more
to do with social values. I have seen firsthand what a hardworking society
looks like, and I have seen what a lazy society looks like too. I believe this
exists because Japanese people did not give up, no matter how difficult it was.
They pursued knowledge and they were rewarded accordingly. This doesn’t mean
that others have not either, but still they weren’t able to achieve the same
level of comfort in the society as Japanese. We might argue that other races,
minorities etc. had to deal with more racism but we all know US history; all
the minorities had their fair share of trouble within the white America.
Murat A:
Although I do
recognize the powerful influence that culture has over economic trends I do not
think culture alone can be chosen as the reason why different minorities have
considerably different levels of wealth. Work ethic does play a huge role in
determining one’s level of income and wealth; but it is far from being the only
factor at play.
The
difficulty of picking a single element of culture and making it the only
culprit is as difficult as it is for good reason: One simply cannot put the
entire blame on culture as there are way too many variables at play. So, rather
than pointing at just one detail and declaring it the culprit, I just wanted to
make list of some potential obstacles standing in the way of a minority group.
- Education plays a tremendously important role in one’s chances of “making it.” The Asian immigrants tend to be really well-educated in their fields, compared to the average Mexican. Before blaming the guy, however, just compare the opportunities for education you’d have in Japan to those in Mexico. Even if the Mexican guy tried, how can he even receive an education as good as the Japanese have the chance to.
- Similarly, pre-immigration work experience is just as important. Without going into too much detail, the average Asian does indeed have the higher ground due to this small detail.
- It is a lot harder for a hardworking Hispanic or Black person to shake off the stereotype assigned to their races. They must fight against the perception that they are lazy, not just actually be hardworking. How can a person with distinctively Asian physical traits and one with Hispanic ones have the same chances in, say, a job interview? Even if they have identical CVs, the Asian guy is more likely to land the job. Just because.
- Different ethnic groups often immigrate to different states. And as we know, states within the America differ from each other to such an extent that they make all the European countries look similar to each other. The immigrant groups, therefore, are very likely to struggle under entirely different conditions, simply due to a geographical misfortune –or they’ll be fortunate.
Just some food for thought.
Questions for discussion:
- Please feel free to join the discussion we’ve started above. How do you explain the success of Asian Americans, despite all the discrimination they’ve been subjected to?
- Do you agree with us when we say that the concept of hypodescent has its roots in owning/inheriting wealth? Why? Why not?
Links
The “Evenin Govuhnuh” video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWynJkN5HbQ
The song played at the beginning: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/short-change-hero/id474262480?i=474262754
Interview with Hollinger: http://s-usih.org/2012/11/an-interview-with-david-hollinger.html
The .pptx file, as promised: http://1drv.ms/1tLeu8K
Note: The music at the beginning and the video have been removed to reduce file size. The music is just a few lines above, and the video is embedded in this post.
Note: The music at the beginning and the video have been removed to reduce file size. The music is just a few lines above, and the video is embedded in this post.
Refresh your memory on G. Carlin:
Further enlightenment:
http://mic.com/articles/80841/12-beautiful-portraits-of-black-identity-challenging-the-one-drop-rule
-Buğra Murat Altan
-Murat Güzeller
-Buğra Murat Altan
-Murat Güzeller
Thank you Murat's for this presentation.
ReplyDeleteI think that, this 'one drop&one rule' point was set&created to decrease the limits of the people whom are not American.
Before answering the first question, I'd like to say something about the video that we watched. Since the video was shot to draw attention on 'outsider racialization' it was possible for it to have negative thoughts. Except all, what annoyed me most, was the part where she was described as 'weird' by the man. What she did was same with what he did just before her. It is a shame to describe the actions weird just because she's not looking like American. It is a shame to prejudice people just because they have different features. Just because they have visible differences.
About the first question;
'Please feel free to join the discussion we’ve started above. How do you explain the success of Asian Americans, despite all the discrimination they’ve been subjected to?'
I think that, the success of the Asian Americans is a symbol of people whom are forced to stay behind, whom are banned to show their power. It's like a voice or a helping hand for them to encourage them. Just as what Murat said, it's a way for them to show that they've beat others with the challange that the others put. For them, it's way to say and show 'you gave this to us and we succeed on this.' In my opinion, the achievement of the Asian Americans should not surprise people because it's a work of the rage and all that discrimation
Kardelen İpek
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOkay this is my second time writing this post (yeah I love my computer(!))
ReplyDeleteYour presentation was so good that I wished we had done it :) I love it! Thank you. While listening to your presentation and also as reading you blog post, the all I can think about was VISUALITY. Visuality of American society while looking at things, such as race, fame, carrier, house or anything. Most of them only look at the appearance (I think it is also a problem of modern societies from all over the world yet it is more clear in America) They discriminate people according to the way they look, the way they act, the way they talk- how they seem to American people. This visuality includes skin color as well as stereotypic behaviors and characteristics of other people. When we think about stereotypes, Black people are seen as domestic, in need of help, savages while Latinos/as are seen as lazy, criminals, drunk. However, Asians are known as, they are bad at English, driving and sports, and they are really smart. I do not think being bad at driving and sports exclude you from anything, being bad at English may exclude you yet being very smart will outcompete bad English. So, when I look at these stereotypes, I can see very clearly why Asians are the first one to get included into society. Skin color exclude black peoples and some Latinos/as(some Asians may be excluded too but they are generally white(not yellow or anything), especially Korean ones). Stereotypes exclude again black people and Latinos/as, also some Asian people. Yet, there are always some other Asian people who will be included by Society. For the Blacks, both skin color and stereotypes are problematic, for Latinos/Latinas it is more about stereotypes, I guess. They are generally perceived as some community trying to take over American society with their culture and language. African Americans were not that seriously a threat to the society since they speak in English and they are more easily assimilated. So Latinos/Latinas became the problem for today's "regular" Americans who are obsessed with visuality. These were some of my thoughts after listening to your presentation and reading your post.
As an answer for your second question. I do not believe owning/inheriting wealth affect the concept of hypodescent that much. So my answer is both yes and no. Even though a Black person had fifteen houses all in great cities and places, ten cars which are McLarne, Ferrari and Lamborghini, he would still be discriminated not by the government and big cooperations but by common White people who pass him/her by. He might attract some attention and be envied but there would be some people who look down on him just because his skin color. However, when Europeans first came to America, if Africans had also had houses or technology as Europeans, then everything would have been different. Since they did not have even rights when they were first brought to America, even though they gained some rights and even had right to buy houses, it was too late for them or to change the concept of hypodescent. At least that's what I think.
And I have one question/option for you guys:(It is about stereotypes since I believe it is one of the main problems of today's racial discrimination (I don't know if you are agree with me though) Do you think if stereotypes can be changed through mass media, entertainment business and literature? If yes, why does no one do it? If no, why not? My opinion on that is yes they can be changed and for the second answer, I will say money is the main problem since not many big companies will pay for distribution and advertisement of this kind of movie/book. What do you guys think?
-Ezgi ULUSOY
HI Ezgi,
DeleteYes, we have to remember that "Asian American" is an umbrella category and that while typically East Asian immigrant groups and minorities (Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Taiwanese) can be seen as "successful," "Asian" also includes South East Asian groups, such as Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian, Hmong, Filipino....and other groups that have attained the "status" of other Asian immigrant groups. So let's remember that.
Second, I think what the Murats mean about property and hypodescent has to do with the law that property could only be passed from white fathers to white sons until (help me out here folks, I think it wasn't until the 20th c that this law changed?). Now, as we know, many white men had children with black women, sometimes their slaves, sometimes free black women. So, to keep those mixed-race sons from having a chance at claiming property from their black fathers, hypodescent became an easy legal category to claim that *anyone* with *any* amount of black "blood" was "black," and therefore not eligible to inherit property. Of course,we're still talking about men here because women couldn't own property or vote until the 20th century. Make sense? It was a way of keeping property in the hands of "real" white men.
Dear professor
DeleteYes, I know these things but I didn't think they mention it like this, I'm sorry about confusion, the question was not completely clear for me, my mistake. Then I agree that the idea of hypodescent was because of owning property. As you also said, I think it was only to prevent any children of slaves owning the property.
And the usage of the Asians as umbrella is also unreasonable since it is impossible to have the same difficulties as anyone as also mentioned in the text. What I was trying to say that just the over-visuality of American people and what I mean by visuality is not only appearance but also the behaviors that can be seen through eyes and turn into stereotypes.
Ezgi Ulusoy
Dear Murat & Murat,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the informative presentation. Also I enjoyed the video about “Where are you REALLY from?”. The more we learn the more I discover how life gets different shapes in every distinct part of the world. People sometimes underestimate the problems of countries from another part of the world, just because they are not familiar with the conflicts of that part. However, focusing more on details opens a door and invites us to understand more. Even I remember five or six years ago, when I hear some news about discrimination in the USA or in another place on earth, I was thinking that there were more serious problems on earth than discrimination. However, now I understand that without reaching peace in the local affairs of one country, peace for the Universe is not possible. Knowledge provides people another perspective. I don’t know about the education system in the USA, but I think they should start informing children about the “real” history and adults about the injuries of the past in order to create a more peaceful country both in its domestic and in its foreign affairs.
Although I discover many differences between the USA and Turkey, the most striking part comes up when I think how us and them perceive nationalism differently. I really feel bad when I think having heritage from a European country or from the USA sometimes is considered as superiority sign. Of course diversity is good all the time but I don’t think many people understand the concept of nationalism or they misunderstand it. To me, nationalism should be “no matter where our ancestors come from, we are gathered under the same flag with the aim of living in peace without looking down upon different cultures that composes our national identity as a whole”. So diversity should be seen as richness but not as a sign of superiority. So in that sense, one drop from another culture cannot spoil the whole, on the contrary it nourishes the cultural identity of a country. As Turkish people we usually welcome diversity, but for some, this diversity is only welcomed if it is not about being Kurdish. This is another story that we all are familiar with. I think Anzaldúa is right in saying that “todas las partes de nosotros valen”.
Another point that you covered in your presentation was about the question of what should be done to gain more visibility to Latino people. I agree that people use more visual techniques to get information or for entertainment not just in the USA but also in other countries where technology is improved enough to provide their citizens visual information. We can see the example of this in “Americanah” Chapter 14. While Ifemelu writes to Obinze about American students, she says “We watch films in class…They talk about films as if films are as important as books.” Ifemelu doesn’t accept the idea of making the value of films equal to books and finds it “not serious”. I agree with her in that a film can never give the same emotion or the same perception that a book can give a person. However, when we think of the power of media (especially visual types) we cannot underestimate the effect of it on our thinking process. So although I praise more written elements of a culture, I should accept the impact (which is usually not favorable) of media organizations in our lives. Also I know Latino people are really good at music. I think when you have serious problems; the only way to move away from your problems is through music which explains how Latinos are advanced in music. Music involves all kinds of feelings. In that sense I’m sure Latino people will gain more visibility in the following years, although they have it already.
-Deniz
Hi Deniz, can you clarify how your concept of nationalism isn't a kind of colorblindness? They sounds a lot like to me...
DeleteLatinos are, of course, visible and invisible at the same time. We have many famous Latino stars, J-Lo, for instance. Any "undocumented aliens" are all over the media. But do we really *see* Latino/as? Do we *see* our housekeepers, food servers, gardeners, or recognize that there are still fewer major Hollywood Latino/a actors and musicians who aren't just given roles to play Latino/as or expected to make music that sounds "ethnic" or "Latino"???
Also, this account is still set under your name and account. Can you get someone to help you fix that? Thanks!
According to me, nationalism benefits from diversity while colorblindness ignores both diversity and the injuries of the past with regard to discrimination of non-dominant cultures by the dominant one. In other words, nationalism in my perception, should be based on the common aim of living in unity while praising all components of different cultures in a given society.
DeleteTurkish culture, for example is the outcome of the interaction of many different cultures with each other for centuries. In the same way, nationalism doesn't focus on the race or the origin of the "blood" but takes into account of different identities who exist in harmony.
So I'm not sure if could explain my thoughts on nationalism clearly but I can say that my perception of nationalism doesn't contain any aspect of colorblindness. Because colorblindness is sometimes used as a way to assimilate non-dominant cultures according to my point of view.
Deniz
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear Murats,
ReplyDeleteThank you both for your presentation and blog post which include a lot of information and I do not know where to start, maybe I should start from the beginning of your post.
I really like your sentence about hypodescent saying that “Hypodescent is a white American invention.” That sounded very familiar to me as it is just like the idea that “Race is socially constructed.” We first read that race difference is portrayed by white-skinned Europeans and they view themselves as superior to the people who have a darker skin color. Then, again those people continue to claim other things like white people are more intelligent, they are capable and they have better physical characteristics etc. Of course those people did not stop humiliating people with a darker skin but they also gave themselves a right to decide who is going to be labeled as “black” and I think this idea is highly related to the idea of hypodescent. They say that having a certain amount of “Negro” blood in someone’s veins makes this person entirely black even though this person does not seem black.
Here at this point I want to comment on Murat’s question: “If the white race was so superior to black how come a single drop or a single grand-grand parent can taint this superior gene pool? Shouldn’t it be otherwise? Shouldn’t a single drop of white blood elevate the status of a black person that is normally being undervalued by the society?” My answer is YES! But when it comes to the power issue, things do not go as we imagine or as we hope. Any white person can think of giving his/her superior gene to a darker skin person but the question is why a white person does not want to or does not attempt to elevate the status of a black person. BECAUSE they do not want to lose their superiority, their power over another group and if they bring every group to the same level, then they will not be dominant anymore. (I think that is the reason why race is socially constructed and hypodescent is invented.)
Then I would like to link my comments with the text “Privilege” as I think it really helps us to understand the invisibility of white people and make us to question why they are not seen as problems. The matter of whiteness is not engaged in any discussion because white people do not define themselves under the context of racial classification but they simply say that they are humans and they can easily claim this because they are in control of everything. (the media, politics, education) So briefly, white people have the power to put other people into different groups while they put themselves into the group of human beings.
And finally I agree with you guys when you say that the concept of hypodescent has its roots in owning or inheriting wealth because wealth brings power, power gives the opportunity to rule other people by putting your own personal interest into the first place then you can decide who is going to be seen as inferior or who is going to be stay superior.
-Tansu Özakman
Tansu--I really enjoyed your conversation with Murat's comment on the hypocrisy of hypodescent and it's relationship to power relations. Nice critical thinking and connection-making here!
DeleteI'd like to begin with m&m's picture. It's funny :)) the presentation was full of information and personal thoughts. I think at some point -towards the end- there was too much of an information flow that I couldn't catch everything :)) we learned about the term 'hypodescent' which is a pure American invention goes back to Jim Crow and segregation times. to answer the second discussion question; it of course has its roots in owning wealth. The most important thing is to have a property in The United States since the early years. If there is even a drop of 'negro blood' people couldn't own a land or a house. there is also another term I liked which is "strategic essentialism" basically means essentializing arguments about identities like blackness. people and societies tend to do that. The video we watched was really about 'outsider racialization'. people look at each others' racial features and see them as an outsider. I think we don't have it in Turkey that much. Also Murats talked about hypovictimization. there are victims of white racism since being white is the most popular and powerful thing.
ReplyDeleteAlso I really loved and agreed to the idea that minorities at some point should make cultural contributions (like music, technology..) that society values to raise the status of their group. This might be the only affective way to unify. to talk about mexican undocumented immigrants, they give United States an extreme work and labor power for a little bit of money. some people die trying to cross the border. They even pay taxes but don't receive the benefits. I used to think that it's a win-win situation that mexican people get to stay in the US and US has cheap labor. But it is a big problem. media and visual images effect people's minds too.
Hey Selen, just a reminder that in your comment you should refrain from making comments on the presenters or their style (see the instructions) and just stick to the topics okay? You can let the presenters know by emailing them or telling them the parts of the presentation that were difficult to understand, if you like. Thanks!
DeleteFirst of all thank you for your informative and interesting presentation, I would like to start with the video that you have showed "What kind of Asian are you?". In the video the men "regular American" first tells the girl that her English is perfect but later on he starts talking slowly and louder as if she cannot understand the language or has some problem of perception. They were both in the same level of being American but her appearance was the reason for this conversation which was offensive. This fact actually still happens in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, The overrepresented and underrepresented minorities are another matter that should be considered. As we learned that they are not considered as being represented in media or any other way but they are considered for how much they involved in high level jobs or education. This fact is directly related to the involvement for the economy, industry and science for U.S. Who are the Asian Americans. As we all know the Japanese are highly involved in technological issues is an issues that make a lot of money and recognition for the U.S. The Latinos and the other minorities which are the underrepresented are because that the work they do is not involved in high levels or benefits of the U.S. They hold a great deal of labor jobs in the U.S. some of them officially and some not but in many ways they all fulfill the U.S. benefits. on the other hand the growth of the Latinos challenged the one hate rule.
All the minorities have their different problems and recognition is an important fact. As it was mentioned in the presentation that the racial identity boxes in the census are important for the recognition. when we come to the success of the Asian Americans, as Hollinger mentioned, all minorities are in some point equal in terms of being a victim of white racism and we can talk about Asian Americans success in terms of historical circumstances and the different level of benefit that the U.S. gains from them.
Rabia Betul KUBILAY
Hey Betul--check out my comment on Ezgi U's post on the umbrella term "Asian" or "Asian American." Later, we will see that not all Asians and Asian Americans have been as successful as some. There are many minority groups within that group that don't receive the same benefits as people from, for example, Japan, China, Korea, or Taiwan...
DeleteThank you Murats for this informative and fluent presentation. The hard copy info you gave is very efficient as well as your comments during the presentation.
ReplyDeleteThe well-planned blog post and the article of Hollinger’s make a point, actually a term really significant and salient to us as readers: HAPPENED to be black. If you have a broad family rather than having only one generation or two; leads to having more risks, yes risks. Because of the consensus being black is related to your family tree even though this African American ancestry comes from a member of your family who lived with dinosours. You can’t prevent it and you can’t choose not to be involved in it because of the hypodescent term. I certainly agree what Murat without glasses said “ Single drop of black blood should not dirty the white person if they are so superior”. He has a very critical point here which everyone should slow down and think about. Whites created the image of undefeatable and powerful beings like a superman. Yet, they are tiny and vulnerable enough to be affected by the one drop of black blood? This has no point at all which exactly shows the ridiciluosness of one drop one hate rule; but of course only visible when it is applied to the people who have the characteristics of a white person.
“The one drop rule and the one hate rule” by David A. Hollinger is very much linked to our presentation with Aslı which was about US Census and how some populations groups are underrepresentated. In Prewitt’s article it can be inferred that African American’s historical descrimination creates some kind of hierarchical assumption among minorities. For example even though Hispanics have a much larger population than any other minority group in USA including African Americans, they are underrepresentated when compared to African Americans. A likewise concept is evident in this article as well; Asian Americans! Hollinger states in page 23, Asian Americans are labeled as the “ model minority” by their directed approach to science. In this case, the idea of African Americans, Indians and Latinos as having some kind of genetic deficiency is reinforced by the ‘wonderful’ Asians. Another likewise case is that blacks are raised as the value of group by their music such as hip-hop. Hip hop is a value that society holds and in turn it makes money and contributes to the regulation of economy.
I want to share a video that I have found during the research of my presentation. It is about the questions that are posed to the Asians and Latinos who look ‘different’ than the fixed Americanized thought of a person as white. It relates to this weeks blog post in terms of the weird and meaningless questions asked by other people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvo5WK9O5Aw
Another video that I want to share is from another course of mine: Social Psychology. Experimenters held an experiment which is about the prejudices against different racial origins. Participants are shown some pictures and objects; in turn they are expected to decide between shooting that person or not. This expirement is important to understand to relate to the police officers’ behaviors to the nonwhite people and treating them violently. As a results, participants have a tendecy to shoot the black people and see them as dangerous when compared to white people. The context is about social psychology but the visual is related to our topic about the prejudice towards blacks:
http://visual.pearsoncmg.com/mypsychlabsocial/episode6/web_index.html?clip=3&tab=tab0
NICE WORK!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your inclusive and informative presentation. It really helped me to understand the text throughly as it is a hard one to grasp easily.
ReplyDeleteWhile I was listening to your presentation one thing occupied my mind mostly was that how hypodescent was constructed in the society, and even put in legislations to grant the status of white people. I certainly agree with the point that hypodescent is created in order to protect and preserve the private property. White people, cleverly, in order pass their wealth to their ‘white’ children and reject their children from slaves created the concept of “one-drop” rule. It is much easier to disown any children rather than stop to harrass their slaves, I guess. It is also very interesting that today this concept is being challenged both by the immigrants and the already existing minorities. Who determines who is the real American? Or who is Black? Are our ancestors important in determining whether we are American or Latino or Black? I find it very contradictory because today blood line is not really important. You are as American as you feel like. You might have African American ancestors but the most important thing is how you feel about it. Just like Ken Tanaka shows in the video. Although she is an American and also feels like it; the man pays more attention to her racial features and her ancestors. There is no “regular” American or no “real” American in other words. Everybody comes from somewhere else, has ancestors from another place. Even whites are racially mixed or coming from Europe. So the hypodescent rule actually contradicts in itself and as it is challenged by more racially mixing;it is no longer applicable. Where you are from is solely relates with where you identify yourself with.
Hypovictimization, another fancy word we learned yesterday, is also a major problem. It takes its roots from stereotyping and generalization. It is actually the combination of the two. Minorities, which were taken into consideration seperately; are know referred and acknowledged as “people of color”. This is problematic in the sense that it generalizes the conditions and problems that the minorities live with. It supposes that problems of the Latino community is similar with the African-American community; because they are all “people of color” or “minorities” in general. However, this is not the case. Different minorities have different problems; Hollinger also differentiates minorities in terms of who is underrepresented and who is not. For examples Asians; as we talked about, are now mostly appear in higher positions but they have other problems like their stereotypical image as always hard-working and being good at science. However, Latinos a different group has a different problem. They try to solve the illegal immigration problem or the census problem. Therefore one cannot refer to people other than whites as “people of color” and think their problems are similar and thus they will require similar solutions.
This question is brilliant: "Who determines who is the real American?" It can be another mantra for the course....
DeleteThank both of you for your inspiring presentation. I really enjoined. I want to answer one of your questions.
ReplyDeleteQ: Do you agree with us when we say that the concept of hypodescent has its roots in owning/inheriting wealth? Why? Why not?
I totally agree with you on this statement that the hypodescent based on the opportunity of owning/inheriting wealth. The hypodescent concept, as you guys mentioned in your presentation too, is the basic calculation of so called “Negro” blood in one’s veins. If you have even “one drop” of black blood, you directly categorized as “black” or “Negro”. To understand this concept and its consequences, one must look at the history of slavery. When a master takes possession of a slave woman and has a child from her, the baby automatically becomes a slave for the protection of his (the master) wealth. So the newborn slave will not take advantage of the any rights (claiming property or freedom), which comes with “white” blood. Today the same issue is alive by white racism. To separate all non-white people and the opportunities (educational, economical, etc.), which come with it, the “one drop” rule is still alive.
I wish you'd say more about how you see hypodescent playing out in current times. Great historical summary...
DeleteThank you Murat & Murat for your presentation, it was very informative and fluent.
ReplyDeleteI want to start with the short clip that we watched in the class, it really summarises the one drop rule and it also covers up the "hypodescent" on the steroids. Any amount of a Negro blood" ends up for a person to be classified as Black. The problem does not just in terms of race but it is also about economic status, education, crime rates and exam results. The discrimination is in everyday life. "The movement of recognition of 'mixed race' identity has made some headway, including for people with a fraction of American ancestry, but most governments, private agencies, educational instutions, and advocacy organizations that classify and count people by ethnoracial categories at all continue to perpetuaue hypodescent racialization when they talk about African Americans" (A. Hollinger, pg:18). As Hollinger wrotes in his document the racist approach is still exists and also people see all the victims of the white racism as belonging to a unified group. Also Prof. Reimer mentioned during the presentation that in America having a property ownership is important and Black people owning properties is a susbstantial thing and it is line 'new'. The quotation that our friends give about Pick and Choose is pointing out the one drop rule and I found the quotation enchanting; " You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is like an ocean, if a few dorps of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty" Mahatma Gandhi.
Gözde İPEK
What does that quote mean to you, personally, Gözde??
DeleteThank you Murats for your well-though presentation.
ReplyDeleteI understood that it is important to know hypodescent rule which directly put people from different socioeconomic groups in the less privileged group so as to know how race is determined in the U.S. Race is fixed at birth and cannot change according to this one drop rule. Yet it is confusing to determine which minorities suffered from it more and which of them overcame it easily. First of all, it is not easy for any of them no matter how their culture is or what their characteristics and skills are. Asian Americans also had to struggle for a long time to win desegregated and equal educational opportunities among the other minorities like African Americans or Mexican Americans. Yet they have been continued to be emphasized as the one racial/ethnic minority group that has successfully overcome these problems of white racism and that they achieved the American dream. I believe that statistics which shows their success was mainly because of education. I found out that 42% of all Asian Americans have at least a college degree and that they have the highest GPAs and scores in schools.
However, their statistical success does not show that they are all together are the same and this fact does not implies that they do not suffer or have any troubles against discrimination. It is true that many of them have a good education but it is also true that the same amounts of Asian American people are still struggling to adapt the culture and the life in America. I think it is also a stereotype to label them as the highest of all the racial/ethnic groups. Although it seems good to be projected as the most successful minority group, it is not good at all. In fact, being the “model minority group” must have been put a great deal of pressure on many Asian Americans. They need to work harder and provide higher qualities because people have higher expectations from them. They are still the targets of discrimination; being the model minority group makes it more difficult for Asian Americans as people expect more for them in any area.
Burcu Karatekeli
Burcu--yep, you got it. Great research. I will also point you to my comment on Ezgi U's post, which discusses that not all "Asian Americans" or Asian immigrants experience the same level of success. We see that immigrants from East Asia (Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan) are more "successful" than other minority Asian groups, such as Southeast Asians and Filipinos. So, yes, it is a much more complicated story...
DeletePs: I WANT TO HEAR YOU SPEAK IN CLASS, BURCU. You are too smart to be so quiet. Don't save it all for the blog. Girl, I'm watching you ;)
DeleteIt was really great presentation, thank you guys.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I would like to say something about the concept of hypodescent. It shows us how individuals’ races are determined by society in the US even before they are born. Our appearance comes first, as particular races are assigned to us. In other words, our appearance is considered, as whether we are “regular American” or not is determined. However, when we go deeper, we see that sometimes even apperance loses its significance and it becomes something which is about “blood”. For instance, if one of your parents is black, even though you look like White American, automotically you are thought as “black” as well. This demonstrates the ambiguity of the concept. I believe, as Murats also point out, dypodescent may have its roots in owning wealth. Money is always associated with power. It used to be, and it seems that it will be. At this point, it can be said that the ones having power must have created patterns to show their superiority by marginalizing other people, and now we see the consequences of this.
I would like to add something about the term “regular American” that we heard in the video. I think, it is really groundless term. For instance, what does “regular American” mean? Who decides whether you are “regular American” or not? It is mostly believed that if you do not look like White American, then you cannot be “regular American”. It does not matter whether you were born or grew up in the US. It does not matter whether you speak English fluently or you adopt your American identity proudly. Your skin color and appearance matter. Thus, I decided to use this term as “cosmetic American” rather than “regular American”. I will call them like this, because all they see is the appearance but nothing. I believe the word “cosmetic” makes more sense at this point.
Murat asked that "if the white race was so superior to black how come a single drop, or a single grand-grand parent can taint this superior gene pool. Shouldn’t it be otherwise? Shouldn’t a single drop of white blood elevate the status of a black person that is normally being undervalued by the society?" I totally agree with him, but let me create a counter-argument to this. At this point, I want to emphasize again and again that I absoultely do not think like this and I find it really disgusting, but maybe most of White Americans has thought that a single drop of "Black blood" was enough to make even this “superior gene pool” dirty. Maybe they tried to justify their actions by thinking like this?
As we consider the multi-cultural aspect of the US society, being American cannot mean being White American. As Murat points out, the cultural contribution of minority groups cannot be ignored at this point. I think every individual who shapes American identity and contributes it, should be seen as American citizen no matter how their apperances look like or which languages they speak. As people realize it, I think hypodescent will lose its meaning as well.
Yasemin ÖZTEMÜR
I think white people decide who is a regular American, right? Like Dyer says and like Lipsitz will tell us later. "Cosmetic American" makes me laugh because we use cosmetic the same as make-up. So I guess I'm definitely a "cosmetic American"--jajaja.
DeleteFor the first time, I don't really know where to start.
ReplyDeleteI just hope my comment won't look like a mess !
Since I am in Turkey, a lot of people are asking me where I come from, and when I reply, "France" they often tell me "you don't look like French" or "What's your real race ?" and I am like "What's looking like French ?" Generally they don't know what to reply but I obviously know that it's a question of skin color/appearance.
So at one point, I was asking myself if the skin color was the only criteria to define your (national) identity.
But I know that back to France, the problem is my skin color but also the (other) culture/religion I am carrying. I put culture along with religion because, thanks to this "strategic essentialism" thing, French people (and many others) don't make the difference between one's being arab and one's being muslim.
But well, I just wanted to say that, essentialism is definitely a huge problem and has everything to do with this "single story" story !
Before I speak about Asian-American, this few days, in class, hearing that the so called "Hispanics" became "the largest minority", that, they represent now something like 1/3 of the US population I was wondering : To what extend can we call a minority "a minority" ? Because well, when they become so numerous that they represent almost a third of the population, is it still a minority ?
By the way what is a minority ? Is it really a question of number or is it the fact of not belonging to the "white group".
As for the Asian-American, the very term is so essentialist ! It designates too many 'kinds' of people (Pakistani, Indians, Filipinos, Japanese...).
I have a friend of mine who's Californian and Filipinos, she is studying here too, and she told me that Asian-American in America, are known as
"The model-minority", but she told me that, when American people talk about "Asian-American" they see them as Chinese or Japanese people who are seen as hard-worker : stereotypes she said, and that's so true !
I don't know if you guys have ever heard about Amy Chua, a law professor at Yale University who wrote a book entitled 'The Triple Package - how three unlikely traits explain the rise and fall of cultural groups in America' where she makes the link between Race, Ethnicity and Success. I must admit that I follow her work from afar, I still need to read the book but I read about it and I can say that she refuses to link success with culture but she explains that, contrary to white people, some minorities (including Black migrants that she separates from African descendants) are feeling insecure. This feeling lead to stricter behaviour by the parents toward the children and that might affect the success of these minorities (especially Asian-American & Jews).
Here come a link, if someone, is interesting, where they explain in detail what the book is about : https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/04/new-book-finds-unlikely-traits-explain-success-various-groups
So I wouldn't say either that the success of Asian-Americans is a question of culture. It's much more than this.
And for this story of "One drop" I suggest you guys to watch "Belle" a 2013 movie based on the real story of the daughter of a white aristocrat and a black woman, if you haven't seen it yet.
~Inès Allag
Ines, yes, you hit the point I made earlier in my reply to Ezgi about the umbrella term "Asian" or "Asian American" and how it leaves out many disadvantages minorities-within-minorities. Now, as to what does it mean to be a minority? I don't think it's about numbers--it's about power and how power relations are experienced. So, even in Latino/as are growing in numbers, they don't experience *privilege* socially, economically, politically, culturally, legally as white Americans, so that's why they and others are minorities. As long as you don't have equal status as the dominant group, regardless of your numbers, you're a minority. In my opinion.
DeleteFirst of all thank you M&M for your great presentation.
ReplyDeleteActually I do not know how to comment for ' the one drop rule '. Because I cannot put this in a place in my mind. When we watched the I thought that this is not funny, this is tragic. I do not understand that how can a person judge the other one according to his/her 'heritage'. In that point I remembered the quotation from Gandhi that Murat mentioned in the presentation "You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is like an ocean, if a few dorps of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty".
Yes Gandhi is right but the main problem is; the dirty ones are much more than we think and this situation cause a social constructed idea. In order to cope with this serious problem -it is cliche but- education is obligatory. I cannot say more things about this because if I have to be right this situation does not fits to my logic, I cannot make an explanation of this to myself.
Dilan Algan
Oh, but try! I'm interested in your thoughts on the role of education in this issue....
DeleteBy the way, SPEAK UP MORE in class. You have interesting ideas to share, Dilan.
From beginning to end it was great and straightforward presentation, thank you. Yet the starting quotation of the presentation actually summarize what we are doing in this lecture, yes blogs are good for reading comments and seeing other thoughts about the subject but it's not enough to have concrete solid and final information.
ReplyDeleteFristly the concept of hypodescent is the major issue that holds the key for the hollinger text. Because of this constructed term most people able to determine who's and who's not black yet, are there any difference to call an African-American or Black in these days? The gap is obvious but yet even hypodescent is losing its power by the time because of the universalization of the thoughts. However the exiting part of the presentation was the legal side of the story, what I mean is Like the Virginia example, single portion of blood can determine your future job, future identification and racial profile. Of course that is sick, but yet how it could get legality from government? And how the people have Black gene in their blood identified, is it being quarter black or so?
Presentation of the race was another topic in the presentation, and I totally agree, the balance could create something good for any society but like presenters pointed out, it will hurt when people over-doing it, but it will lose it's identity and also rights when its under-representation. That may also be the meaning of no-race / no-pain; what I mean is; isn't it possible for people to live their life and get over with the others being greater or being weaker? (and yes there should not be discriminatory regulations in any sense in this model of society) But it is obviosly and utopic construction, at least they should give it a chance. And also about that; I was expecting a George Carlin video that he talks about god and race, how they are interpreted :/
In essence the Black'ity of people are bothering everyone that's what I get from this presentation, being Irish, Jewish even being European doesn't count in contrast with being Black. The hypocrisy of the single blood can destroy all the whiteness, mentioned by Murat G. was put a point to the subject. The video was straight to the point, the stereotypical specifications are what makes race and how we define racial profiles. So my question is; If all those stereotypical specifications belonging to a certain kind of group; isn't it possible another group of people could copy that and also isn't it posible that those specifications is the actual evidence for the construction of the “race” ?
Serhat Başak
Black'ity is cool--we say "blackness," but I like "black'ity." As for African American vs. Black--have you guys discussed this with Prof. Demiturk or Nikki Brown? I assumed you have, but if not, we should discuss it....
DeleteThank you Murats for your great presentation.
ReplyDeleteI would like to start with concept of hypodescent. Maybe it is too simple to compare with but when you explained what the concept of hypodescent is, it reminds me dialogs between teenagers and their parents (especially in Turkey). the dialog that when teenager ask permission to go out at night, parents generally say no because you are not adult yet. but when it comes to tidying the room or studying, they say you are grown up now you should know your responsibilities and we think that am I grown up or not? It depends on which way will be beneficial for parents at that moment. Likewise concept of hypodescent, they decide who is called as black or white by depending on which way they can profit from them. So, I completely agree with you that they are hypocratic. And to answer your second question, I think it has its roots in owning wealth because all kinds of relationships is a power struggle and wealth is the most important element that gives people that power to struggle. So, if you have money, you have right to rule.
finally about discussion between Murats I think both have point on thier argumants. I agree with M.G' idea about how Asian people cross the race but success maybe the most effective factor but not the only one and also as M.A points out to be successful there are also some requirements such as opportunity for getting enough education before immigrate in order to be skilled worker, in other words have a head start to be recognized in the U.S.A.
Interesting point that you raise Berivan...is "adulthood" also a social construction? I'd love to hear people's thoughts on that....
DeleteFirst of all thanks Murats for their informative and illuminating presentation. Hypodescent which should be known shows the peril of black discrimination. For example I want to refer to the video clip which includes a conversation passed between a young boy and an Asian American woman about woman’s nationality. It was offensive that young white boy asked woman “where is she from?” many times in succession but I don’t think that he did that intentional evil-disposed he just wonders that what is her origins? Than his positive comments that he made by the Korean cuisin and traditions were so intimate. Moulding this race issue is wrong because normally it not the thing that can be mould. People from different races were not born with this stereotyping, they are just from different races and ethnicities it is just that much simple thing made conflict issue and it was moulded distemperately by people from different races . They are also normal people as white americans with all of the things they have so why classfying them instead of accepting them as normal people as themselves whatever their races and ethnicities are without debating their races, traditions,origins and ethnicities.
ReplyDeleteÖzge BAŞAK
I'm not quite sure how you are using the word "moulding" here, Özge...
DeleteYour final question is one of the core questions of the class...so, how do YOU answer it?
First of all thank you for this great and informative presentation. I really enjoyed it. Also I loved the video “Where are you from?” . This video tells the situation in a funny way but it actually happens in reality. We should question “regular American” expression because what is “regular American?” It is actually tragic because it really happens in United States and it also exists in Turkey. For example, even today most people ask me that where I’m really from and you feel that you have to explain your family history.
ReplyDeleteThe video that we watched, it explains the “one drop” rule and there is a hypodescent on stereoids. It is sad that if there is any amount of “Negro blood” which is an offensive term, one is classified as a black person. It shows the hatred of people and the idea of “racism”. There is a “strategic essentialism” term that we learnt in the class, it is a major concept in postcolonial theory. This concept comes from Indian literary critic and Spivak who is a famous theorist.
I loved your examples from important people. For example, Gandhi’s expression is so right. “You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is like an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.” This is so true that and he is so positive, optimist about the change of humanity. He thinks that people can be merciful and give up discriminating.
Finally, it is possible to see that there is also a white racism and Asian American people suffer from this deplorable situation. I think that both black and white people contributed the U.S. economy. It is clear that all minorities have different problems. For example, Latinos have an illegal immigration problem. Unfortunately, these problems are still seen in United States because "race" issue is a great problem for people.
-Ezgi Doğan
I'd like to point out first that it was an entertaining presentation with all the memes (I particularly enjoyed Bane) and the video was quite funny too. About the video, as I mentioned in one of my comments during class time, the "lol" factor stems from the concept of over-exaggeration. Of course there are major A-holes who act akin to the way that the white guy did, but there was a simple curiosity that is layered underneath that ignorance. It does not justify his actions, it's just that I find it normal to ask someone where their ancestry lies.
ReplyDeleteWith all that left behind us, I'd like to touch upon some other aspects of the subject matter that was handled in this particular presentation. The idea of "hypodescent" was just something that was coined by ignorant white man who were scared to hell that their "perfect" genealogy and society would crumble because of mere difference. We've seen this way of thinking way back since the 18th, 19th century, making way to the present day. The paranoia that was caused because of 9/11 is a good example for that. The normalization of this state of panic and emergency, the fear of outsider mentality mixed with a haze of patriotic fervor leads to jingoism with the added bonus of racism. We've seen a result of this (although to be honest, this has been going on for a while, even before 9/11) in the short excerpt of "Wetback" that we watched. We see these "minutemen" (they would love to be called that since they believe that they're doing their country such a great service) patrolling the border with automatic guns in their hands, waiting to shoot people who just want to lead a better life, but do not have the means to be officially a citizen with legal documentation. These "guardians of all things that are American" are very disturbing to say the least and does not give me any hope at all as to what could happen in the future.
Will a day come that these men would hang their guns up and remove their heads out of their a**es, come out and say that they accept Americans of all races, creeds and religions? I really doubt it. The media supports the opposite ideology, the society accepts this spoon-fed information and justify their ignorance because the "almighty TV!!" deems it OK to hate one another. There is some hope to preserve, however. We can see progressive people having progressive ideas and feelings looking into the future. We can always join them, or join the goons patrolling the border. The choice is out there.
-Kaan Can Oyman
"We've seen this way of thinking way back since the 18th, 19th century, making way to the present day. The paranoia that was caused because of 9/11 is a good example for that. The normalization of this state of panic and emergency, the fear of outsider mentality mixed with a haze of patriotic fervor leads to jingoism with the added bonus of racism." I really appreciate this example of making connections across history and across different racialized experiences to show the continuities between past and present in the USA racial landscape. Nice critical thinking!
DeleteI want to thank Murat Altan and Murat Guzeller for your presentation. You guys explained us the term hypodescent in its relations to one drop and hate rule in a clear way.
ReplyDeleteI believe that hypodescent as a racial concept, was used to construct a base for not allowing minority groups to inherit assets. In the last lecture, it is mentioned that assets is one of the indicators of holding power. Who is eligible for inheriting assets is one of the major issues that has ties with racial and legal policies. Going back to slavery period of the US, it was not possible for African-Americans and people who have racially mixed backgrounds to own and inherit assets. Free/white/male citizens could benefit from properties and thus became the superior figures. The slave owners’ children from slave females did not have right to own assets because their white side “lost its pure form”.
As people who have multiple racial origins make the racial borders blur, another practice was introduced to keep white superiority over minority groups: “one drop rule”. I find Murat G.’s emphasis on the contradictory views of the white superiority advocates helpful in observing the flaws of the practice. How can one drop determines a person’s racial category or stains another racial group? Even the word “drop” does not make sense in measuring one’s racial features. I would also question that which methods they use to measure people’s level of whiteness. The family tree can be used, but the records cannot be always easily reached and reflect a very detailed ancestral background. Physical appearance is another and mostly used dimension in measuring one’s origins. As the video that we watched during the presentation suggests, such approach is also wrong and offend people. The “regular American” guy did not think that she was as regular as himself because of her physical characteristics.
As for “the one hate rule”, it is evident that minorities have been treated in different ways because of their different historical, geographical and cultural backgrounds. Their gathering may helped them to gain recognition and integrate among other racial groups. However, from the realistic point of view, such practice does not work as it can be observed from the affirmative action policies and professional and social spectrums.
-
Hacer Bahar
Oh the question of methodology is a fascinating one! There is so much strange history behind how white people in America have used methods to categorize peoples' racial status. For instance, there was the "blue vein" practice, which meant making a slight scratch on the inside of your arm with a fingernail and depending on how red your skin turned after this scratch, the "whiter" a person was. Too bad for all those people with suntans.... ;)
Delete