A Multiracial Movement and a Multiracial Box Won’t Solve the Racism Problem
Rachel’s Tavern: Race, Gender, and Sexuality from a Sociological Perspective
2007-04-02
Rachel Sullivan, Associate Professor of Sociology
Montgomery College, Germantown, Maryland
In a comment on the last thread on Rachel’s Tavern about how biracial children affect family approval of black/white relationships Dave of mulatto.org, made the following comment:
Professor Rachel Sullivan here gives a good textbook example of propaganda that facilitates white/black biracial subordination, by making the case that white/black biracials shouldn’t be considered a population with challenges distinct from blacks except for being more privileged.
The problem is that this is not what I said, but I do think this is an opportunity to talk about some of the politics of multiracial identity. For the record, my dissertation was not on how people of mixed race identify. It was about family approval of black/white relationships, and the reason children (biracial or not) were important was because the most common reason given for opposing an interracial relationship was the idea that the children would suffer. That belief was premised on the “tragic mulatto myth.” In this study, all of the people I interviewed were couples in Black/White interracial relationships. Only one of those people self identified as biracial. I did not interview the children of these couples, so I did not get their opinions.
However, for the record I do not agree with Dave’s position, which to me reads that “people who have one black parent and one white parent are a distinct racial group and should identify as biracial, mixed race, or mulatto, not as black.” (I’m not sure how he feels about people of mixed parentage identifying as white.) Here’s a quote from his comment:
It’s logically inconsistent to say (1) white/black biracials should be identified as black because most white people will only see and treat them as black, and (2) whites treat white/black biracials better than black people because they see them as different than dark-skinned black people. Although I don’t think this makes logical sense, I think it’s crafted to be anti-white/black biracial propaganda. The first part implies that white/black biracials shouldn’t have a distinct affinity identity to organize and advocate for ourselves, because we aren’t treated differently, and the second part implies that white/black biracials are less deserving of telescopic philanthropy (definition on Wikipedia) than black people.
Dave’s belief is that mixed race people mixed ancestry should organize their own groups, and they should see themselves as distinction from African Americans. I have no objection to organizing some multiracial groups, but I also thinking that many of the needs, concerns, and issues overlap with those of other people of color. Personally, I do not think it would be beneficial to try to create a new racial group akin to the “colored” population in South Africa.
I am tired of multiracial activists who say people should have an option to choose their race, and then these same people get mad if people do not choose “biracial” or “multiracial.” People should have the choice, regardless of their color of phenotype, to define themselves racially. I also feel that these choices may change over time or circumstances; making racial identities fluid in some cases. I feel that both the one drop rule, and the assertion that people must choose biracial are racist because they encourage essentialist definitions of race and because they do not allow the freedom of self definition…
Read the entire entry here.