The "1 Drop Rule" explained and how it's tied to AfroAmerican identity

[IllmaticDelta]

According to your definition is vague because you refuse to delineate when black ancestry is so insignificant that it doesn't count.

I explained it already. This

Obviously it's based on the samples they tested. So 1/3 of that sample showed white americans were part african




It explained clearly how the one drop works:

"
Whites’ Skin Tone as Function of Admixture

The combination of narrow phenotype variation (skin tone) along with a wide range of inter-population (Afro-European) admixture variation among White Americans shows that a selection process has taken place. Few human populations display such a clear mark of selection. Narrow phenotype variation alone does not necessarily indicate selection. Northern Europeans display little skin tone variation, but they lack a wide range of African admixture. Broad genotype variation alone does not necessarily indicate selection. Puerto Ricans average 50-50 Afro-European admixture, but they also display a wide range of skin tones. The late Stephen J. Gould, Harvard biology professor and columnist for Natural History magazine, used to explain this principle with a baseball analogy. Plot a scatter diagram of the batting averages of a thousand amateur or minor-league players and you will find a very large range of variation. A few such players are very bad, a few are very good, and most spread across the entire range of batting averages in-between. Now plot the batting averages of professional athletes in the major leagues. All are very good indeed. More importantly, the range of batting averages among them is tiny. The difference between an outstanding star of the game and a rookie is a matter of mere hundredths of a percentage point. The reason, of course, is because you cannot get into the majors unless you are very good at it. Similarly, wild cows vary greatly in the amount of milk that they produce. The cows in a dairy farm produce more milk on average but, more importantly, their milk production varies very little among themselves (compared to wild cows). The reason? Those cows who do not make the cut become hamburger.

And so, why do few if any White Americans display a strongly African appearance (have a high melanin index) despite having detectable African admixture? Because those Americans who “look Black” are assigned involuntarily to the Black endogamous group, whatever their genetic admixture. The scatter diagrams of the two endogamous U.S. groups are not symmetrical because the selection process acts only upon the White group. As revealed in court records, discussed elsewhere, a person of mixed ancestry who “looks European” (like Dr. Shriver or his maternal grandfather) in practice has the option of either adopting a White self-identity, thus joining the White endogamous group or a Black self-identity, thus joining the other group. But a person of mixed ancestry who “looks African” lacks such a choice. U.S. society assigns such a person to membership in the Black endogamous group, like it or not.25

In conclusion, U.S. society has unwittingly applied selection pressure to the color line. The only American families accepted into the White endogamous group have been those whose African admixture just happened not to include the half-dozen alleles for dark skin (or the other physical traits associated with “race”). Since those particular alleles were sifted out of the portion of the White population that originated in biracial families, the relative percentage of the remaining, invisible, African alleles in this population cannot affect skin color. That skin-color does not vary with African genetic admixture among American Whites, despite their measureably recent African admixture, demonstrates and confirms that physical appearance has been an important endogamous group membership criterion throughout U.S. history. It has resulted in genetic selection of the White U.S. population for a European “racial” appearance, regardless of their underlying continent-of-ancestry admixture ratio."

combined with...

"Blackness" in the USA isn't fully based on phenotype as I explained earlier. All you need is the African ancestry which is usually combined with shared experiences of other "black" people. Usually people will come from generations of acknowledged African descent or if they're biracial or something, recent African descent. You have to look at the concept of "Blackness" in the AfroAmerican way of seeing things in the way "Latino" is used in the USA but the difference being "Black" people in the USA will all have African ancestry regardless of phenotype whereas "Latino" might not have a common racial bond since you can be full blown Amerdindian, 100% AFro and/or 100% Euro from Latin America and all get grouped together.

I stress again....blacks were enslaved because they were noticeably black

That's how it started when they were Africans

not because they had 'shared experiences'...that's vague.

The shared experience is what made them "Aframs" and a new ethnicity born out of slavery.

 

[BmoreGorilla]

Everyone in the world has an identity. So do I. But wen you say your identity is based on shared experiences, that is meaningless. AA identity is based on the extraction of black taken from Africa and brought to the US. If as an AA you cannot trace your lineage to one of these people. Then you are not AA no? The white ancestry is a by-product of slavery but black Americans are black due to their ancestry coming from Africa or else you wouldn't be called African Americans.

How is that meaningless when you have people from other countries who also had slaves as ancestors but don't consider themselves black? Being called black is a by product of slavery as well but here everybody who would've been a slave is considered black when in other countries that's not the case. That's just the way it is here. If I was from a place like the Dominican I wouldn't even consider myself black and both my parents, all grand and great grand parents are all black. In fact all my great grandparents were the children of former slaves yet some countries don't even consider me black

 

[IllmaticDelta]

It's not about whether they passed or not. If one looked at them, nothing would indicate they were black unless they showed their relation to black relatives. To me that shows right there, that their experience doesn't liken the average Black American.

If they weren't trying to pass what other life do you think they were leading? They were leading the life of a "Negro" American. So they ended up facing the same experiences as their darker kin.

 

[BmoreGorilla]

It's not about whether they passed or not. If one looked at them, nothing would indicate they were black unless they showed their relation to black relatives. To me that shows right there, that their experience doesn't liken the average Black American.

How is the experience different if they all woulda been slaves? How was the experience different if they were all considered 3/5 of a human? How is the experience different if there were laws to keep you in your place? Yes light skinned folks have fared from slightly better treatment but they were still seen as less than human

 

[Yup]

How is the experience different if they all woulda been slaves? How was the experience different if they were all considered 3/5 of a human? How is the experience different if there were laws to keep you in your place? Yes light skinned folks have fared from slightly better treatment but they were still seen as less than human

Who told you that a guy who looks like George w bush would be considered 3/5 a human. You based that on what?

 

[BmoreGorilla]

Who told you that a guy who looks like George w bush would be considered 3/5 a human. You based that on what?

Books

 

[Yup]

How is the experience different if they all woulda been slaves? How was the experience different if they were all considered 3/5 of a human? How is the experience different if there were laws to keep you in your place? Yes light skinned folks have fared from slightly better treatment but they were still seen as less than human

You and @IllmaticDelta are speaking about away. My point is what ties african american is their black lineage and the black experience in the us for 5 centuries. You can have a shared experience but a lineage needs to tie you together within your cultural group. A person who has black lineage far removed cannot identify to black experience period.

 

[Yup]

Books

Books...told you that he would be treated 3/5 of a human? How would a white person tell if he does not say it? Your arguments are really weak.

 

[BmoreGorilla]

You and @IllmaticDelta are speaking about away. My point is what ties african american is their black lineage and the black experience in the us for 5 centuries. You can have a shared experience but a lineage needs to tie you together within your cultural group. A person who has black lineage far removed cannot identify to black experience period.[/QUOTE]

That's part of OUR experience. Your looking at us through the lens of a foreigner

 

[BmoreGorilla]

Books...told you that he would be treated 3/5 of a human? How would a white person tell if he does not say it? Your arguments are really weak.

What makes you think that the books I speak of were written by white folks

 

[IllmaticDelta]

You and @IllmaticDelta are speaking about away. My point is what ties african american is their black lineage and the black experience in the us for 5 centuries. You can have a shared experience but a lineage needs to tie you together within your cultural group.

being of African descent ties us together regardless of phenotype

A person who has black lineage far removed cannot identify to black experience period

In the USA they can and did and I already explained how and why...a perfect example below on how shared experiences bonded this woman who could have easily passed for white, to her roots as an Afram

Janice Kingslow

Janice Kingslow: Refusing to Pass

Often, researchers at Shorefront ask the question, “What was going on at this time?” when they come across incidents relating to their research topics. Sometimes, we fall into the trap of applying today’s thoughts to yesterday’s events that can lead to a misinterpretation of a past event. However, there are times when you come across a pivotal action that shaped the racial and social discourse across the nation. For today, a past event can have one reflect if discussions have changed or continue unchanged.

Janice Kingslow was one of several who, during the 1950s, sparked conversations in blending in, or not, in greater society. Janice, a well-known actress with a deal of a lifetime in front of her, chose a different path to maintain her identity.

Born in West Virginia to Harry E. and Virginia E. Warren Kingslow, the family moved to Evanston when she was just an infant. Her early years there led her involvement in St. Andrews Church and attended school at Dewey Elementary, Nichols Junior High School and Evanston Township High School. Her family moved to Chicago’s Hyde Park where she finished at Hyde Park High School around 1941.

What good was fame or money if I lost myself?

Janice’s career in acting began early performing as a puppeteer in various schools and other venues. Her big break took place in 1946 when she became understudy for Hilda Sims in the play “Anna Lucasta”, a role in which she eventually took over.

From there, she went on to perform in the Peabody Award winning radio series, Destination Freedom as well as Here Comes Tomorrow and Democracy USA radio series (1948-52). Janice was also one of the founders of the Chicago DuBois Theater Guild (1948).

However, when she was presented a Hollywood contract that would launch her career to new heights, there was a clause. In an article Janice penned, “I Refuse to Pass” that appeared in the May 1950 issue of Negro Digest, she wrote:

“What good was fame or money if I lost myself? This wasn’t just a question of choosing a pleasant-sounding false name to fit on the theatre marquee. This meant stripping my life clear of everything I was. Everything that had happened to me.”

In the contract, Janice was asked to change her name and take on a white identity.

In a conversation with newspaper editor, Melvin Smith, in the Evanston Newsette, she relayed a story to him while she was on a bus traveling home from Michigan. A “young white fellow” sat next to here and struck up a pleasant conversation. After a while he began to ask about her national origin. After going through a long list, he asked:


“You. . . you. . . you aren’t. . . a Jewess?”, [Janice laughed] ‘Then the thought that had least entered his mind came forth’ “Why, you’re a n___r!” He declared.’”


“’I am a Negro,’ Janice corrected soberly.”


Janice’s stance in her identity was an important part of her life. It leaves one to wonder what and who were her influences. Was it her parent’s influence? Her involvement in St. Andrews Church in Evanston – like many churches, known for instilling history and pride? Was it her self-determination? It leaves one to ponder the influences and historic implications.

Race, culture and identity had, for decades, been a hot topic of discussion. Yet, at the cusp of the 1960s civil rights movement, here was a young woman who chose to make a public statement than to sell her identity for financial gain. A choice she made during a time where many people of color, let alone one who could “pass”, faced career ending choices that played a part in changing the face of American history.

 

[IllmaticDelta]

But wen you say your identity is based on shared experiences, that is meaningless.

It's not meaningless because without them, the Afram identity wouldn't have it's it's own distinctive culture/traits.

AA identity is based on the extraction of black taken from Africa and brought to the US

Being of african descent is what makes "black" people

If as an AA you cannot trace your lineage to one of these people. Then you are not AA no?

If you aren't of black african descent, you can't be "Black"

The white ancestry is a by-product of slavery but black Americans are black due to their ancestry coming from Africa or else you wouldn't be called African Americans.

Black Americans are "Black" because they are of African descent but the term is inclusive that really as long as you'reof black african descent, you can look like anything racially speaking and incorporate non-negroid admix and still be considered "Black".

 

[Yup]

That's part of OUR experience. Your looking at us through the lens of a foreigner

If you can pass for white then you are not black. A black person doesn't have the luxury to put on or take off their race at their convenience. These whites that you posted had access to things that visibly black people would not. It's admirable they 'chose' to be seen as black but actually blacks don't have that luxury. That's where we differ in opinion....

 

[BmoreGorilla]

If you can pass for white then you are not black. A black person doesn't have the luxury to put on or take off their race at their convenience. These whites that you posted had access to things that visibly black people would not. It's admirable they 'chose' to be seen as black but actually blacks don't have that luxury. That's where we differ in opinion....

They didn't choose to be black

Who in their right mind would make the choice to be black during that time in America if they didn't have to

 

[Citi Trends]

CHILLIN WIT MY BLACK QUEEN YALL

But seriously this thread is disgusting and delusional. I used to be on that whole everyone with any black family member is black bullshyt but I'm glad I got out of it. I honestly now think it's because nikkas want fair skin/white women to wife and still act like they're down for the cause.

This bullshyt has never and never will be helpful and has only been used to our demise. nikkas talking about it brings us together with mulattoes. nikka since fukking when? Did I miss the this black unity summit we all of a sudden came to? And it'd be nice if we actually DID come together to actually do anything in this country but we haven't.

This shytty rhetoric has undoubtedly done exponentially more to harm us and have our organizations infiltrated. The shyt has done nothing for us instead of having nikkas not feel guilty because their girl has a black great grandmother.