Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   It somehow feels like being "black" is more inherited than being white.
> >   I don't get it.

> The whites set the rules. If you were a little black, you could be a slave. 
> Simple, really.

  I certainly do understand that some hundreds of years ago when oppressive
slavery and extreme ideological racism was prevalent in the US, that is,
when non-whites were considered inferior races, people who had non-white
ancestors were considered "less pure" than people who had only white
ansestors. In other words, in this ideology if one of your grand-grandparents
was non-white, you were partially "non-pure", and thus almost as bad as a
black person. Thus certainly if one of your parents was black, you were
considered as "inferior" as your parent, and thus black. Your "white half"
had not much significance in this: You were still "impure".

  But this is more the reason why I'm completely baffled about the modern
custom of calling people "black" if one of their parents, or even grandparents
is black. This is a reminder of the times of ideological racism and slavery,
and it's precisely what we want to eradicate. Considering "blackness" as
"more inherited" than "whiteness" is racism in its purest form, both
historically and ideologically.

  IMO racism will never be eradicated as long as a mulatto is considered
"black" and things like this are allowed to exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Black_Journalists

  (Imagine the outcry if there was a "National Association of White
Journalists".)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message