How Mixed-Race Politics Entered the United States: Lydia Maria Child’s ‘Appeal’

Posted in Articles, History, Literary/Artistic Criticism, New Media, Politics/Public Policy, Slavery, Social Science, United States, Virginia on 2010-04-12 17:11Z by Steven

How Mixed-Race Politics Entered the United States: Lydia Maria Child’s ‘Appeal’

ESQ: A Journal of the American Renaissance
Volume 56, Number 1, 2010 (Nos. 218 O.S.)
pages 71-104
DOI: 10.1353/esq.0.0043

Robert Fanuzzi, Assistant Chair and Associate Professor of English
St. Johns University, Queens, New York

For scholars of the colonial and early national United States, it is difficult if not impossible to retell the story of social egalitarianism and political liberty without recounting the social, political, and legal codes governing the practice of miscegenation. Under both the colonial British regime and the post-Revolutionary political order of the United States, these laws and customs operated hand in hand with the equally determinate laws of slavery and citizenship, helping to decide who was a democratic subject and who was not.

In seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Virginia, prohibitions against mixed-race marriages and extramarital unions along with their mixed-race offspring helped to create a new, putatively classless caste system, which equated the dignity of free labor and property holding with a pure British ancestry and the indignity of coercive labor with an African ancestry. In doing so, these laws paved the way for a historic argument for civic equality that rendered the American colonist the genetic bearer of English liberty.  In the new American republic, miscegenation laws functioned even more transparently as citizenship decrees, stipulating the whiteness of politically enfranchised subjects and, often capriciously, the blackness of the enslaved or disenfranchised. The logical outcome of these laws, the “one drop of blood” provision, was a testament to the determination of the privileged caste to maintain an artificially scarce supply of citizens by keeping their legal, economic, and political assets from their mixed-race descendants.

Miscegenation laws and regulations played an equally formative role in the civic culture of the antebellum era, when social prejudice against race mixing helped to police civil relations and to foreclose the scope of civic activism…

Read or purchase the article here.

Tags: , , , ,

Fading to white, fading away: biracial bodies in Michelle Cliff’s Abeng and Danzy Senna’s Caucasia

Posted in Articles, Book/Video Reviews, Literary/Artistic Criticism, Media Archive, Passing, Women on 2010-04-12 03:49Z by Steven

Fading to white, fading away: biracial bodies in Michelle Cliff’s Abeng and Danzy Senna’s Caucasia

African American Review
2006-03-22

Michelle Goldberg

However dissimilar individual bodies are, the compelling idea of common, racially indicative bodily characteristics offers a welcome short-cut into the favored forms of solidarity and connection, even if they are effectively denied by divergent patterns in life chances and everyday experiences.—Paul Gilroy, Against Race

the invisible in me is counter to the visible.—Michelle Cliff, “The Black Woman As Mulatto”

Michelle Cliff’s Abeng (1986) and Danzy Senna’s Caucasia (1998) typify a recent literary uptrend: a dramatic increase in biracial fiction, memoir, and theory, in biracial discourses of passing, invisibility, and identity. Abeng, which received widespread critical acclaim, and Caucasia, the winner of numerous 1998 “Best Book” awards, introduce characters whose mixed race parentage holds true for a growing number of multiracial Americans. Both novels offer biracial characters who resist racial labels while staying especially connected to “blackness.” In Abeng and Caucasia, respectively, the white bodies of Clare Savage and Birdie Lee misrepresent identities that remain ascribed to, yet not confined by, “blackness.”…

Read the entire article here.

Tags: , , , , ,

“Tell the Court I Love My [Indian] Wife” Interrogating Race and Self-Identity in Loving v. Virginia

Posted in Articles, History, Law, Media Archive, Native Americans/First Nation, Social Science, United States, Virginia on 2010-04-12 03:26Z by Steven

“Tell the Court I Love My [Indian] Wife” Interrogating Race and Self-Identity in Loving v. Virginia

Souls: A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture, and Society
Volume 8, Issue 1 (April 2006)
pages 67-80
DOI: 10.1080/10999940500516983

Arica L. Coleman, Assistant Professor of Black American Studies
Unverisity of Delaware

The article reexamines the Loving V. Virginia case by focusing on their tri-racial community of Central Point, Virginia and Mildred Loving‘s self identity as an Indian woman. Loving’s self identity was informed by the twentieth-century politics of racial purity, which resulted in a community-wide denial of African ancestry. I argue that Mildred Loving’s marriage to a white man was not an affirmation of Black/white intermarriage, but rather adhered to the code of racial purity as defined by the state of Virginia, a legacy which continues in the post-Civil Rights era.

The 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, has garnered far less scholarly attention than its 1954 predecessor. Brown v. the Board of Education, which overturned legalized segregation. What little appeared in the way of scholarship has focused on analysis the history the history of anti-miscegenation legislation, the events which led up to the case presentation before the nine justices, the legal precedents regarding the arguments presented before the court, and the unanimous decision delivered by Chief Justice Earl Warren. Until recently with the exception of an article which appeared in Ebony magazine several months after the Supreme Court decision, writers have given little attention to the personal lives of the actual plaintiffs now enshrined in American history, as “the couple that rocked the courts.”…

Read or purchase the article here.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Ambiguity and the Ethics of Reading Race and Lynching in James W. Johnson’s The Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man (1912)

Posted in Articles, Literary/Artistic Criticism, New Media, Passing, United States on 2010-04-12 03:11Z by Steven

Ambiguity and the Ethics of Reading Race and Lynching in James W. Johnson’s “The Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man” (1912)

Current Objectives of Postgraduate American Studies (COPAS)
Volume 10 (2009)
ISSN: 1861-6127

Carmen Dexl
University of Erlangen

James Weldon Johnson’s novel The Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man (1912) discusses the causes, conditions, and implications of passing in a segregated society. The essay argues that the novel’s aesthetics of ambiguity conveys and reflects an ambivalence towards the concept of race. Using theories of Geoffrey Galt Harpham and John Guillory, it elaborates an ethics of reading race and lynching in The Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man.

…Being of mixed-race heritage and blurring the black/white binary, the Ex-Colored Man as a passing figure personifies this “category crisis.” As the living proof of the instability—and hence unreliability—of the category race, the Ex-Colored Man is necessarily ambivalent towards the ontology of racial categories. Apart from his intention to remain anonymous, his and all the other characters’ namelessness throughout the novel further denote a “sense of rootlessness” (Andrews xix) in a constantly changing modern society that is paradoxically firmly rooted in exactly these unreliable conceptions of race. His moral dilemma and contradictory attitudes towards himself and society result from being at once an insider and beneficiary as well as an outsider and critical observer of that very social system…

Read the entire article here.

Tags: , , , , ,

Understanding Race: The Evolution of the Meaning of Race in American Law and the Impact of DNA Technology on its Meaning in the Future

Posted in Articles, History, Law, Media Archive, Social Science, United States, Virginia on 2010-04-12 01:18Z by Steven

Understanding Race: The Evolution of the Meaning of Race in American Law and the Impact of DNA Technology on its Meaning in the Future

Albany Law Review
Volume 72, Issue 4 (2009)
Pages 1113-1143

William Q. Lowe
Albany Law School

Race has played a decisive role in nearly all aspects of American society, yet its meaning in various contexts remains unclear.  Throughout history, individuals have struggled to define “race” as it pertains to science, society, and the law in particular. Although race became a part of the English language in the mid-sixteenth century, it did not take on its modern definition until the early nineteenth century. Scientific, social, and political interpretations of race have gone through an evolutionary process as well. After over two-hundred years of trying to understand its meaning, “[t]he word ‘race’ defies precise definition in American law.” Countless competing theories exist as to the definition and meaning of race, and the inability for one to earn universal support poses a significant problem to the American legal system. Despite the fact that numerous statutes have been enacted to prohibit racial discrimination throughout all aspects of American society, “the law has provided no consistent definition of race and no logical way to distinguish members of different races from one another.”

It has been argued that “race” was first used as a tool to classify individuals during the age of colonial exploration; however, this use was maintained for centuries. Today, classifications based on race are still present in America, and have been found to be permissible in some instances, such as when used to remedy instances of past discrimination. With the predominant role race continues to play in American society, to ensure that all are treated fairly under the law, it is imperative that a single definition of race is applied universally to all Americans. It is foreseeable that advances in science, particularly in DNA testing, will allow for a uniform method of determining one’s race.

This note will discuss the current lack of a settled definition of race in American Law, and the potential role DNA technology can play in remedying the problems associated with it. Part II of this Note will explore the concept of race by examining various definitions of race and how they have evolved into the modern definition. This section will additionally look at the historical understanding of the meaning of race, and the recent divergence from traditional thought. Part III of this Note will analyze the role of race throughout American legal history. This portion of the Note will address historical notions of race in America, the origin of the need to define race, and the treatment of race by the legislature and the courts. Part IV of this Note will discuss current DNA technology and the potential impact it may have of on modern concepts of race, particularly with regard to the law. It is foreseeable that advances in DNA technology will allow scientists to identify and classify individuals through an analysis of their genetic information.

The first legislative attempt at defining race took place in Virginia, nearly one-hundred years before America gained its independence from England, and it was enacted in response to the “uncertain status” of children born with parents of mixed race. The statute was concerned only with the status of mulatto children who were born to a black woman, and stated that the race of the mother would be used to determine the race of the child. This policy reflected the biological definition of race, as the skin color of the individual in question was determinative. This statute was in contrast to that of English law, where inheritance followed the paternal line. Ultimately, under the Virginia statute, children born of a free white man and his slave could potentially be considered to be slaves themselves.

The presence of many free blacks residing in Virginia quickly made this statute unworkable, because it was not easy to determine if a child’s black ancestry came from his or her mother’s side or his or her father’s side. The possibility that a white woman could have a child with a black man, whether he was a slave or a free man, resulted in mulatto children being exiled from Virginia, and ultimately led to the creation of “one-drop rules.” Such rules held that an individual would be classified as black, despite the fact that his or her genetic makeup was primarily white…

Subsequently, Virginia, as well as other states, passed similar laws aimed at the prevention of interracial marriages. Pursuant to such laws, any white person who married a non-white would be exiled from Virginia. The language used in the statute is striking, as interracial marriage is referred to as “that abominable mixture and spurious issue which hereafter may encrease in this dominion.” This serves as yet another example of the hierarchical system of classification based on race at this time in American history.

Later statutes based on the “one-drop rule” departed from the 1662 Virginia statute in the sense that they did not take a “physical appearance approach.” Such “[f]ormula-based definitions of race” became increasingly popular in the South, and Booker T. Washington provided an accurate description of what they entailed: “[I]f a person is known to have one percent of African blood in his veins, he ceases to be a white man. The ninety-nine percent of Caucasian blood does not weigh by the side of the one-percent of African blood. . . . The person is a Negro every time.” In practice, most states with race-based statutes formed under the “one-drop rule” held that individuals who had at least one black grandparent were legally black. It should be noted, however, that “as the likelihood that more biracial people could be classified as white… the laws became more restrictive… finally culminating in the one-drop rule…

Read the entire article here.

Tags: , , ,