From: ronaldd@cbnewse.cb.att.com (ronald.h.davis)
Subject: Re: The Term "Biracial"
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 06:11:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan18.204854.7017@cgrg.ohio-state.edu> demetri@cgrg.ohio-state.edu  writes:
>that the treatment of any group as inferior is offensive.  What is also
>offensive to me is the suggestion that the child I am carrying, and whom I and
>my husband will raise, should deny half of his or her heritage.  The whole "one
>drop of Black blood makes you Black" system originated in a racist system to
>keep all people of African ancestry oppressed and to keep the White race pure
>and elite.  Such a system does not deserve to be perpetuated.  
>The term "biracial" is not ideal to me either, it
>suggests that there are discrete groups known as races.  Also, the term
>"biracial" should be used to designate a state of union (as in "check all that
>apply") rather than to separate people into yet another category.
>
it's fine if you want to define words as having your own meaning to you;
however, the society in which you live will not necessarily use your
definitions.  therefore, in order to communicate: a)you've got to (at
least) change your usage of words to fit common interpretations, or
b)let the world change to suit you.  good luck if you're counting on
the latter.

the extent to which your child is "denied half of his/her heritage" is
certainly not due to black people - i could care less what you call
your child; but with white people who are going to consider your child
"black" [check out your kid's birth certificate to see how it reads
on this matter] regardless of any intellectualizing that you engage
in this forum.

i heard a "biracial" [meaning "black"] woman on a talk show once
giving an arguement for the recognition of the category "biracial".
she didn't impress me as being particularly intelligent [meaning
not stupid, but not exceptional either] since the reality of the
matter is that the term "biracial", regardless of how you think
of it in your own mind, is little more than a modern-day equivalent
to the term "mulatto".  consequnently, "biracial" will come to
mean the same thing, with maybe a somewhat less pejorative
connotation.  think about it, what other races *other* than black
would want to be classified as biracial if only one parent is
black?

i'm realistic enough to know that with the importance of race in
our racial-caste society, white people [collectively, not necessarily
every individual] are going to be the last to want to see the
race classification scheme go away; especially with its ability to
separate black/white.  at the same time, i also realize that the
whole race scheme does not really have intrinsic value; but while
artificial it unfortunately has profound impact on our society.
consequently, to the extent that we realize that race is a bogus
measure of a person in reality, i don't see how matters are helped
by adding new racial classifications - especially when this new
classification [in this case, the term "biracial"] is little more
than a synonym for an existing racial classification [in this case,
the term "black"].

>I realize that we will have some opposition, that our child will often be
>perceived as Black, and that he or she may be criticized as a "traitor" for
>identifying as biracial, and we will have to prepare our child for these
>
well, you won't get any opposition from me.  however, if your child
depends upon being classified as "biracial" in order to establish a
self-identity, then i think he/she is going to be a pretty confused
kid.

-- 
  __  ______  __  / __/ |       at&t bell laboratories, naperville il, usa
_/ (_(_) / (_(_/_/_(_/  .       ronald@iexist.att.com / att!iexist!ronald
"if you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes" -- edmund wilson
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american