“This is one of the more mystifying things I have discovered about the United States, since moving here a couple of years ago. Evidently (please correct me if I’m wrong) it has been traditional to call anyone with a smidgen of African-American blood “black” or “African-American,” even if their ancestry is more white than black, or if they are perfectly bi-racial.” Carrie Buchanan
I’m still getting comments about my posting, “If is biracial, why is this man black?” Carrie Buchanan’s comment inspired me to write a short history of ways racial identification was determined in this country.
Of course, we go back to slavery.
Slavery in the United States differed from its counterparts in South America and the Caribbean. There, race is determined by appearance. Here, it is determined by ancestry, appearance and self-identification, according to the scholars I’ve studied. In the early days, servitude mattered as well.
After Emancipation and Reconstruction, white Southerners drafted legislation that defined race by ancestry. The laws from states such as South Carolina, Mississippi, etc. weren’t about defining who was black; they were meant to define who was white.
Remember that these laws were enacted during an era when former slaves were gaining economic and political power that had been reserved for whites. The laws were meant to maintain the status quo. A case in point was Hiram Revels, the first black person to serve in the United States Senate in 1870.
Hiram Rhodes Revels, the first black man to serve as United States senator.
Revels rose from being alderman in Natchez, Miss. to becoming a state senator. Those senators sent him to Washington in 1870. (In those day, voters did not elect senators; legislators did.)
Revel’s appointment was challenged because former slaves/blacks had only gained citizenship in 1868, with the passage of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The Constitution required man be a citizen at least nine years. Revels was therefore ineligible to hold the seat, according to his opponents.
But Revel’s supporters argued the rule didn’t apply to him because he wasn’t “pure African,” but had Scottish, African and Native American ancestry. Plus, he was freeborn, as were his ancestors. Thus he had always been a citizen.
Funny how these argument pops up when African-ancestored Americans make a successful power grab.
I put self-identification in bold, because I’m confused by the argument of mixed-raced folks – and others – who assume that folks like Obama and Cleveland mayor Frank Jackson claim to be black only to get some sort of political advantage. Carrie, the poster I’ve quoted above, makes that same kind of assumption.
But I remember about 15 to 20 years ago, when bi-racial folks demanded the right to a self-definition that embraced both sides of their racial ancestry.
Perhaps Frank Jackson calls himself black because that’s what he figures he is. After all, in the United States, appearance doesn’t matter. Ancestry does.
And maybe, just maybe, Barack Obama calls himself black because that’s what he figures he is. I mean, there are so many ways to be black these days. And if you don’t want to be black, then you don’t have to be.
Now, I’ve got another question: why do the terms “bi-racial” and “mixed” only refer folks who have a black and a non-black parent? Why isn’t it used to describe folks who, say, have an Asian and a non-Asian parents? Or a white and a non-white parent?
