?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
19 March 2007 @ 11:17 pm
-breaks down down laughing until i cry-  
shadowhwk, who is what I consider to be really truly American, ethnically speaking, is participating in this ongoing discussion regarding racism. Right now the discussion is focused on racism in the publishing industry. One of her debate partners feels strongly that anyone who has any black genetic material in their makeup is by default black, and that claiming to be anything other--like, multiracial--is selling out and so on and so forth in that manner. Now, what I can remember of Sarah's ethnic background off the top of my head includes Shoshone Indian, Irish, African, and possibly German, but maybe that's somebody else. Anyway, under this woman's argument, she's rejecting her black heritage and is therefore an Oreo: black on the outside, white on the inside.

I thought about this carefully, and decided no, that's all wrong. She's not nearly black enough on the outside to be an Oreo, and clearly she's too socially sensitive to be purely white on the inside.

I have concluded that obviously, she is a Nutterbutter.
 
 
Current Mood: sillyvery laughing
 
 
 
darillian: SW Queendarillian on March 20th, 2007 01:05 am (UTC)
Nutter Butter! I like that! I think it'll take off and be in the slang dictionary in short shrift.

My question for those that claim the "denying their black heritage" is this: Why is it wrong to acknowledge additional heritage you have? If someone is black and Spanish or Irish for example, are they required to choose? If they have links to all those histories, wouldn't it be right to recognize them all? Who says that one takes precedence over the rest? Insisting that they only recognize one (in this case the African) seems pretty egocentric to me.

But then, they are just being racist themselves.
Quezzquezz on March 20th, 2007 12:07 pm (UTC)
Apparently, I'm one of Kit's "nutterbutters" so I'll answer that one:

I think this stuff only matters when money's involved -- i.e. afirmative action in the US. If you run around denying your black heritage until college and job applications, you're an ass for doing it. Can't have it both ways. Past that, I think any definition of self that is TRUE to yourself is good.

I'm multiracial (Black, white, and Asian) but I feel comfortable saying I am part of or none of all three of the communities that make up my heritage. I'd not deny any part of it, for good or ill.
S. L. Grayshadowhwk on March 20th, 2007 04:03 pm (UTC)
According to the person who made the assertion, the problem is that the only reason someone would do this is to better themselves and elevate themselves above their societally determined role.

In other words, it's her opinion that society demands that, if you have any black heritage, you are black only, and will be treated as such. If you insist on saying that you're multiracial, you're denying the black in order to get a better lot in life, and it doesn't really matter anyway, because society's still going to treat you like you're black.

(Deleted comment)
S. L. Grayshadowhwk on March 20th, 2007 07:24 pm (UTC)
I suspect that whether there are societal roles for black people depends entirely on individual perception.

I'm sure--well, I know now--that there are people who believe that they exist. I know that there are people who don't.

The fact that we're living at the same time in the same country means to me that it must be a matter of perception.