Reply #105: It sounds like you are, once again, trying to change the terms of the discussion without warning. [View All]

[LooseWilly]

You respond to the proportions of free blacks in 1810 by saying "Except for one over-riding historical fact: they were all subject to racism and segregation, free or not, everywhere in this country." I did not say that they were not all subject to racism and segregation... what I actually said was "The fact is, considerations of "black" have varied, both in law and in popular perception, depending upon place and time." (post 83).

If there were free blacks, and enslaved blacks, at the same time, then I would argue that "considerations of "black" have varied". Further, as a free black had different legal status than a slave, that difference is obviously manifested in "law"... and I think the differences in "popular perception" between enslaved blacks, free blacks in the South, and free blacks in the North is rather self-evident, and the blossoming of the Abolitionist Movement of the times, and the militant response to the Abolitionist Movement, supports a conclusion that "popular perceptions" of "black" varied greatly.

I made that statement in contrast with your simplistic statement "In America, if you have any perceptible black heritage, you are considered black. That is the perception and law for a couple hundred years." (post 78). A statement which you now seem to echo by saying "What I presented to you was not the worst-case scenario, but was the status quo, and still is for many African-Americans." implying a "standardized" status quo.

I still feel compelled to point out that, in view of the differences that I've pointed out and which you seem to want to dismiss without any visible justification, the statement that you make "you are considered black" still... means different things in different times and places. That's not to say that there wasn't stigma, racism, or segregation attached to that "consideration"... that is simply to say that there was a difference between being considered "black" in Massachussetts in 1810, and being considered "black" on a Georgia plantation in 1810. Likewise, there was a difference between being considered "black" by an Abolitionist vs. an Anti-Abolitionist. And being considered "black" in the Jim Crow South was obviously very different than being considered "black" in places like Oakland, or Tacoma, during the period between Reconstruction and WWII.

Ohh, and I feel compelled to point out that it was I who brought up the "one drop rule" (post 81), which you later "merely pointed out the existence of" (post 83). I do appreciate your informing me of historical facts that I've previously brought up though, it is very sporting and erudite. I also find your regular attempts to denigrate my "well-readedness" ("If you would like, I can bury you in other references about the history of racism in America, though I doubt you would read them, history is not your thing.") rather amusing... though I've recently been informed that it is "a very white guy style of arguing". Just FYI, your WASP is showing. (Ironically, I wasn't aware of this. Yet another failure of my "whiteness", alas.)

Of course... after all that... you finally acknowledge the existence of changes. "I don't disagree that ideas about "what is black" are variegating," But you qualify that acknowledgment "only that these ideas have not gotten very far yet." At which point I have to ask, in light of even your agreement that "ideas about "what is black" are variegating"... What starting point are you judging the issue from? And, what is the "end"/"current" point that you are willing to acknowledge in making that judgement of "not gotten very far yet"?

Obviously, if we compare slaves to Barack Obama, Ron Dellums, Maxine Waters, Clarence Thomas, etc. ... "what is black" has come a pretty long ass way. On the other hand, if we take the sort of segregation and racism in New England before Abolitionist issues began increasing nascent tensions throughout the country, and compare that with the modern Mississippi delta, or the Epic Fail that was the Bush Admin's response to Katrina... then ideas really haven't "gotten very far yet".

And, just for the sake of completeness, "Your notion that Obama could choose to see himself as white was stunning in it's naivete." I prefer the term Quixotic Idealism. I would also point out that the words in question are "choose to see himself"... and point out that, technically, Obama could "choose to see himself" as a Space Alien, if he really wanted to... one born on the planet Krypton, son of Jor'ell... sent to Earth to fight for Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

What I actually asserted was that, in my opinion, if he were to choose to "see himself as white"... then I was personally willing to accept him on those terms.

I know... pure naivete. My acceptance is irrelevant because "If he were just an individual on the street, as he once was, every white person and probably every black person would see him as a black individual. That is the way this country rolls." And, here I see another point in which I think our thoughts diverge. I, being a naive Quixotic idealist, am willing to acknowledge and embrace a various and diverse set of perspectives and examine them based upon their internal merits. If someone in Obama's "mixed-race" position wants to identify with the less rather than the more pigmented portion of his/her heritage... I see no reason why I should have a problem with that. If such an individual wishes to define a "space in between", again... I see no reason why I should have a problem with that. Your position, on the other hand, seems to be the fixed one that you have repeated over and over again "if you have any perceptible black heritage, you are considered black".
The fixedness of that point of view, combined with the fact that you insistently neglect to provide any context for "starting points" or "end points" when making your judgements about "progress", reminds me of the lack of any sense of requirement to make clear the terms and assumptions of a point of view which is so characteristic of an "institutional point of view". While I do not believe that you're "point of view" is "institutionally racist"... I continue to get the feeling that the "point of view" from which you discuss and judge many issues is "institutional" in its general structure, and in its implied devaluation of all other "points of view"/"perspectives".

I respectfully contend that, in future, you may wish to consider the possibility that a more explicit explanation of the underlying assumptions of your contentions/assertions might make your point of view more transparent... and that doing so can show more respect for the underlying assumptions of other points of view... a respectfulness which can go a long way if we are going to truly acknowledge and embrace a diversity of points of view. And, in the end, isn't that the gist of the goal of creating a multi-cultural society?

I'm not trying to deny that people on the street will see someone who is black. I'm saying that the "black" that is seen is in the "eye" of those people... and just as the "black" that was seen in Georgia in 1810 is not the same "black" that was seen in New England... or today... the Quixotic Idealism of allowing the "someone" some say in defining the "black" for himself/herself is not altogether an impossibility... as "ideas about "what is black" are variegating". If the idea of letting all the "someones" on the street have some personal say in defining the "black" (or whatever) for themselves ever caught on, then imagine how things might change...

On the other hand, I'm also not dumb enough to not know that there are many people, and many facets of many institutions, that will not readily or even willingly, accept any change in the "black" that they see. I am white enough to have been privy to voiced white opinions on the matter... (not to mention many African cab drivers' opinions on the matter)

I acknowledge the grimness of that latter reality, while personally ascribing to the Quixotic Idealism of the former. Given your predilection for demeaning my reading & comprehension skills, however, I suppose it is possible that you will continue to harbor the belief that I am not capable of embracing both facets of the issue at the same time...