Isn't Colin Powell's family Jamaican? Are they related? If so, who's the bigger family hero? Edit: I just remembered that Powell gets his last name from his mother's family. Interesting for this thread.
And so it was that later, As the miller told his tale, That her face at first just ghostly, Turned a whiter shade of pale.
Look at Ben Kingsley. He's half white and half Indian. Whites think he's white, Indians think he's Indian. Jews think he's Jewish. He changed his name to get acting gigs. The point, people want people they admire to be like them so they can bask, and don't want people they detest to be in anyway identified with themselves. Look at Sanjaya. Whites think he's Indian, and Indians think he's white.
public opinion is that if you're part black you're black, hence the reason for this thread. you have no evidence to suggest otherwise so you get over it. you're the only one in the thread making this idioic argument. + so you're tellling me that most people go by this "science" instead of our cultural history in this country. what a freakin joke. your argument has no merit other than its what you believe. edit: and btw, I'm sure more people know about the one drop of blood rule than the science you posted so just because you didn't know about doesn't dictate public opinion.
In the criminal records field there is only 2 options for race: (B) Black and (W) White You'd be shocked at how many counties are still stuck in the old days. Asians and Latinos all have a big bold W by their name in most counties. The big counties have the option for Black Non-Hispanic, Hispanic (of any race), Asian/pacific islander, and White Non Hispanic Never trust any racial census data in the US, ever. It will be wayyy off. :: This isn't toward any poster i just thought i'd share this as I work in criminal data field ::
Yeah, everyone in 2007 goes by a law that was struck down 40 years ago. Of course a person who was born in 1980 is going to go by a law that was made obsolete in 1967. Everyone is going to know about that one... What most people are generally going by is physical appearance combined with a culture based on patrilinear lineage. However there is a good chance that physical appearance will precedence. Nobody I know goes by the ancient one drop of blood thing. I'm willing to guess that a overwhelming majority has never heard of it except in a classroom setting. People consider Tiger black because he looks black. I just asked my wife and she didn't even know his mother is Asian. You assume way too much. And what's up with "science" in quotation marks? Just because you are too dense to understand, it doesn't make it less credible and true.
The one drop rule exists in our culture. Hence the term octoroon and that Seinfeld episode.... Public figures like Obama, Halle Berry, or Colin Powell are always portrayed as black figures. Kimora Lee Simmons is also considered black. Furthermore, there weren't detailed records to enforce the one drop rule back then. It was just if you look black or dark, then you were considered black. An Indian (dot) visiting the south then would probably receive the same treatment.
I think this helps illustrate that how or if you categorize someone racially depends on what you plan to do with that info. If you're trying to find a suspect in a crime based on a visual description you probably need to be as straightforward as possible. If you're trying to trace people's heritage or correlate it with some other sociological info, like a census board might, you probably want all kinds of subcategories like Afro-Caribbean, et al. If you're trying to get know someone, usually try their name.
you act like 40 years is ancient history. my mother isn't even 70 and she was in her twenties when this law was struck down, so it is relevant today. she is a very fair skinned woman who would appear white from a distance. its not like she ran home when this law passed and said, "look momma, I'm white now because the law changed" the issue with the reason I quote is because it has set up the way we look at race in this country, regardless if its still in existance or not. I don't assume anything, you're exactly right, if someone appears the least bit black, they're considered black. you're proving my point. because the science has nothing to do with the issue
I personally don't know a single person who actually thinks that one drop of black blood makes you black. I didn't pay attention in history class so this is the first I have ever heard about it. If it was relevant I think I would have heard of it once in day to day living in the US south in the past 37 years. I haven't. So your point is that if someone looks black that they will probably be called black? I guess I will agree with that. What is the issue? The original poster asked why people call Tiger black instead of Asian. You said it is due to the "one drop of blood" policy in America and Americans (whites) consider anyone with a drop of black blood to be black. You never mentioned physical attributes. If you had just said that people call him black because he looks black, then this discussion would not be happening. Yet you stated he is considered black because of negativity. He is considered black because he looks black and his father is black. Should I not consider his father as black just because he looks black? Is that negative too? What should they be considered? I consider people to be part black to be part black, not black. But like I already stated, the true line of ancestry is based on the mother's side. That is something I learned a good while back in college. (I find anthropology MUCH more interesting than history) Let's dissect this video. I see Dez Dickerson as black, Bobby Z as white, André Cymone as black, Matt Fink and Wendy & Lisa as white. Prince of course is purple. <div><object width="425" height="306"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/625w3vFBwlNeZ4llD"></param><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/625w3vFBwlNeZ4llD" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="306" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xm6wh_prince-controversy_music"></div>
no go back and read the original post. I said because of the history of this country. the law is just an example. the point about negativity is that originally it was considered sub human to be black and therefore anyone with black in them was considered black. you study history to study what happened in the past that makes things the way they are today. maybe you're too dense to undestand that.
How I identify Tiger Woods is like this. I identify him by what he does on Sunday afternoons. If he wins a major, or any tourney, he is definitely Asian. When he doesn't win, he is black.
So has any non-black person ever cared what a non-successful black person considered him/herself? Or of any race in general?
The reality is people just have different opinions on the subject. If you are 1/16th black but look white, many people may consider you white just from your appearance but some are going to feel that you black or at least not white because of it. The movie "Imitation of Life" shows a good example. The black mother has a child that looks white and is generally accepted by the community as a white lady. That is until they find out she has a black mother and gets beaten.
