At first sitting, one is impressed by the excellent exposition of both the concept of race and the practice of institutionalized racism in the U.S.A. The language, politics, and ramifications of a socioeconomic structure based on racial classification and skin privilege are well presented and discussed. Particularly useful is the analysis of how both Afro-Americans and Euro-Americans maintain race and racism by "patrolling borders" and perpetuating the requirement of a false either/or identity in order to validate individuals and families. Borderism functions not only to perpetuate racism by maintaining purity and separatism but in so doing it also functions to deny living space to those of mixed race. Yet, having acknowledged and examined the social denial of mixedness, the author's bottom line is nothing new: mixed people do not have the right to identify themselves publicly as such and should be discouraged from doing so. While she seems to partially understand what it means for mixed people to live right on the very border she describes, Dalmage still supports the position that they must continue to endure an externally imposed identity and the social and intrapsychic pressures created and enforced by monoracials. It is far easier to diminish and dismiss the complexity and variety of individual experience by subordinating it to a simplistic (and nonexistent) ideal of group homogeneity than it is to come to terms with reality.

The author discusses the significance of language (and lack of language) regarding race and examines arguments both for and against either changing or deleting racial categories. Interestingly, after noting the linguistic problems inherent in discussing both race and mixed race she is consistently inconsistent throughout her text in referring to white-black mixed individuals as biracial, multiracial, African American, or black. Thus, she further obscures mixed identity by not clarifying her own terminology and demonstrates exactly how language functions to annex mixedness to blackness. As long as nonsense phrases such as "white looking black man" or "light-skinned black" continue in common misusage they continue to perpetuate racism and hypodescent as established by the white "purity" myth. Such language denies reality itself as well as living space, choice of cultural affiliation, and personal identity to mixed race individuals with any known or perceived African ancestry. If a person can look white but be black then "black" is obviously a sociopolitical status rather than a "race." The book would have benefited from a deeper examination of what the author refers to as the "devaluation" of blackness, as well as an examination of the trend in the white controlled media to employ mixed race actors and models to portray "blacks." Doing so would also have required a deeper discussion and comprehension of why "blacks" compulsively claim black-white celebrities and public figures with any known African ancestry even when that ancestry is not visible or when it is obvious that the person claimed does not self-identify as "black" or Afro-American.

While Dalmage maintains that blacks cannot be racist because they do not have the power that whites do to determine others' life chances, she ignores the fact that they did have the political power to determine others' life choices. If the reader is to believe Dalmage, an assistant professor of sociology at the School of Policy Studies at Chicago's Roosevelt University, social justice is solely the prerogative of the group, and the life choices of individuals are irrelevant. Whether the rights of the individual should be sacrificed to the idea of some greater good of the group is as old as Western philosophy. In this context, however, her subscription to this view is just another form of the same old determinism and essentialism that she describes. On the surface she appears to make an admirable attempt to raise many pertinent issues and then address each of their several aspects in an objective manner. On second reading, however (especially of the final chapters), one is left with the inescapable impression that this book was written more to convince mixed people of partial African ancestry to "just check black" than to try to find new ways to frontally challenge whiteness and its self-supporting racist social system. This is particularly insidious as it is a white person (legitimized by the cloak of academic scholarship) writing on behalf of the "Black Cause" about mixed individuals and telling those individuals where they owe their allegiance based solely on that infamous "drop of blood." This is precisely the same message both blacks and whites have been sending Native Tans for decades now going on centuries.

When it comes to race it is often true that people can only see what they've been taught to see or what they want to see. That's why so many "blacks" continue to assert that a black-white biracial person is "black." After all, that is what "whites" decreed so of course it is "truth." Therefore it is obviously whites and not blacks who define "blackness." While it may be true that most whites see black-white mixed people as "just black," it is also true that whites who identify their own mixed children as black are only reinforcing such attitudes. Instead of renouncing their whiteness and subscribing to hypodescent for their children, whites in interracial marriages might consider breaking down the myth of white purity by indicating their children's "race" (where asked/required) as white. At least they should experiment with it since "eyeballers" are technically not supposed to complete this information on their behalf. In reality, parents can now write down whatever they choose. That at least would be an attempt at the deconstruction of "whiteness" and its system of unearned privileges based on an exclusiveness that derives from the myth of racial "purity."

The study's greatest weakness is its limited scope. The subtitle reveals a failing common to post-civil rights black-white interracial marriage partners. That is, they ignore the history of mixed race groups in this country and focus primarily on their own immediate experience and that of black-white individuals born during and after the civil rights era. Understandably, Dalmage writes as a participant-observer based on her nuclear family experience. By limiting the topic to white-black interracial couples with mixed children, however, the author cannot escape the trap of the white/black dichotomy. The trap of the dichotomy is its inherent lie that one is either black or white and that other racial groups or mixtures, both historical and contemporary, are unimportant to the dialogue on race. With this model, mixed race people become the target of charges of being a "buffer group" that benefits from a color continuum created by whites. The fact is that this continuum is also occupied by Asians, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, Hispanics/Latinos and all the other mixtures that are growing daily in variety and number. A really effective examination of race, racism, and mixed race in the 21st century in the U.S. must include comparative analyses of how these concepts are perceived and experienced by Native Americans, Asians, Hispanics/Latinos, etc. (and any mixed race persons whose ancestry derives in part from these groups). In what ways do these socially recognized "minority" groups ignore white racism and participate in the "devaluation of blackness"? Is there a "just check one" mindset among those in Asian-White families? If not, why not? Traditionally, Chinese and Japanese in particular have not only devalued blacks but also considered themselves superior to whites (and everyone else). At one time they had a horror of marrying outside the group. Now Asians have the highest rate of exogamy and the highest rate of non-whites marrying whites. Why is that? How do they regard their mixed children? Are Afro-Asian children devalued and Euro-Asian children privileged? Is the concept of "whiteness" being expanded in the new century (as it was in the past to include Greeks, Italians, Jews, etc.) to include Asians and biracial Asian-White individuals? How does the image of the white family as the model family negatively impact upon other family structures?

"Blacks" supposedly comprise approximately 12% of the total population. No one even knows the number of Native Tans (let alone the number of contemporary mixed race people) since they haven't been counted for 80 years. What exactly is the estimated number of people that "blacks" fear would have been "lost" to a multiracial identifier? Surely there are enough mixed race people who, whether by choice or assignment, have traditionally identified themselves as whatever the "black" label represents and will continue to do so (as is their right). If sheer numbers, however, are all that matter, there is a way to rapidly and vastly increase the numbers of Afro-Americans. If "black blood" is the one factor overriding all other considerations, then in 2010 the Hispanic/Latino category should be deleted from the Census. It is not a "racial" identifier but a cultural and linguistic one and, after all, the Census is about racial classification as a tool of politics and privilege -- not about culture. Those who previously elected this designation would be required to then check only one of the remaining boxes. They would not be allowed to check white because they are not "pure" regardless of physical appearance. Rather, they should be called dark-skinned whites, or white looking brown people. They would not be allowed to check Native American because they have no affiliation to tribes in the United States. They would not be allowed to check Asian even if they have an Asian grandparent or parent because their "black blood" imparts a lower status. They would not be able to check Mullato, Mestizo, Metis, Mixed, or Multiracial as no such peoples exist in North America and therefore no such status is recognized. Thus the overriding importance of significantly increasing the number of "blacks" would be achieved.

If Latin Americans choose to live in the U.S. then they must be full participants in its racist structure in every way. They must not contribute to the color continuum nor occupy a buffer race position. Spanish surnames and language would no longer be allowed to function as "escape hatches" through which they can (and do) avoid their historically known and presently discernable African ancestry. Surely this is no less "socially just" than denying Cape Verdeans and Francophone mixed race Creoles their collective identity which is also based on culture, language, and Portuguese or French surnames. Afro or African American can easily be interpreted to include any person born in The Americas with partial African ancestry. Moreover, since Latin America has a similar history of slavery and all its abuses, its peoples should feel strongly obligated to deny the richness of their cultural experience and their European and Amerindian heritage and willingly and even gladly check "just black." Surely the National Council of La Raza can see the logic, justice, and wisdom in this and, moreover, they should be happy to do it for the greater good of all "people of color" vs. people of pallor. Since "black" is anything but white, the NAACP should easily be able to annex all those confused and tragic south-of-the-border mullatos who are just trying to escape their "blackness" by checking Hispanic/Latino.

After reading this book it becomes apparent that it is time for the NAACP to rename itself. It has demonstrated that its agenda does not (and cannot) in fact serve all "colored" people. It's overdue to update itself to the National Association for the Advancement of Black People or the National Association for the Advancement of Afro-Americans in order to accurately reflect its goals and voluntary constituency. Furthermore, if "black culture" is so rich and rewarding, it begs a number of questions. If "black" is so inclusive and other-defined, how can it be anything specific? Why the need to force an identity on those for whom it does not resonate? Why the refusal to accept the fact that there are plenty of white-black mixed people who don't consider themselves black because they have had other, equally valid, non-Hispanic, experiences? The need on the part of monoracials/monoracists, of whatever stripe, to constantly deny mixedness only serves to prove its existence. Mixedness is itself a continuum that has not only a strongly visible component but less visible components that are blended into the whites who deny it and the blacks that dismiss or denigrate it.

Tripping on the Color Line does not offer any new or significant strategies for challenging racism but rather leaves the reader with the impression that "white racism" is an unassailable monolith. Despite her discussion of the "purity" myth Dalmage fails to recognize that the establishment of a multiracial category would have been an invaluable means to debunk the myth. Rather, she plays on the old harp of the "color continuum" along which privileges supposedly flow and falls back on criticizing the nature, purpose, and goals of the Multiracial Movement. However, the Multiracial Movement is not a traditional civil rights organization. It does not have a national powerbase nor a battery of politicians, lawyers, and fundraisers working on its behalf. If it had it is likely that its Census initiative would not have been thwarted by the efforts of traditional civil rights blocs. The Multiracial Movement began as a response at the local level to a common experience and a shared recognition of the right to self-identification and self-determination. Therefore it is fundamentally at odds with the philosophy behind bloc racial politics. The real question is will the Movement succumb to the divide and conquer tactics and the identity politics used against it by all of the traditional civil rights blocs, or will the effort be made to become a united national political alliance? Will everyone in the Movement take the next logical step and recognize the necessity of moving beyond the old model and actively engage and involve all mixtures both nationally and globally and therefore become truly multiracial? Although Dalmage gives the "browning of America" barely a passing nod, it can already be seen that immigration to the U.S.A. from all over the globe will probably be the most important force in dispelling the current deadlock of the white-black model of racism. The decreasing number of "whites" and "blacks"; the number of individuals born of every variety of interracial marriage; and the increasing number of immigrant "browns" and "yellows" from other cultures will be the most significant factors in finally liberating the North American mixed race population.

All my relations.

©2001 all rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part prohibited without
the express written consent of Interracial Voice.