[Again, I owe some of my ideas in this editorial to A.D. Powell.]

I just finished watching the Masters Golf Tournament last weekend and, like everyone else, saw that Vijay Singh won the tournament. Although Vijay is quite dark, I have not seen any mention of him being "black". On the other hand, Tiger Woods (much lighter than Vijay) has had to defend his choice of describing himself as a "Cablinasian" (and even though the word Cablinasian has within it the reference to being part "black").

Like most foreigners I have pondered the fixation of the United States with making African ancestry into some sort of agent which converts the holder into "100% black", regardless of the percentage of the African ancestry. As A.D. has repeatedly pointed out, exceptions abound, from Caribbean Latinos like myself to Middle Easterners and others. Yet, the U.S. is still in the grips of what I call "a criminalizing appraisal of African ancestry". Why do I say that? I say that because, up to recently, "whites" have been loath to admit to African ancestry, like Indian ancestry, for example. R.P. Stuckert wrote an article back in 1958 called "African Ancestry in the White Population," [Ohio Journal Of Science, 58, no. 3, 155-160]. If African ancestry were not a "criminalizing" element, then those "whites" with African ancestry would have been happy to admit to it. If fact, the word "passing" describes a process whereby this criminalizing African ancestry is hidden.

And "whites" are not alone. Upon arriving in the U.S., Mexicans, Caribbean Latinos and South Americans (if they have straight hair) have not been overly keen on admitting to whatever African ancestry they have either.

The combination of other groups designated as "non-Black" shedding any reference to African ancestry they have together with the tendency of North American "blacks" to appropriate as all black all partially African persons without a foreign cultural umbrella has made the line between "black" and "white" so visceral, "permanent" and rigid.

Sometimes this "criminal" take on African ancestry can reach comical dimensions. For example, as an academic, I have attended numerous meetings in which the "white" participants wax poetically about the "nobility" and "perseverance" and "basic strength" of "blacks". I have often wondered what these same "whites" would have done if confronted in public with news that their grandfathers were West African. It's almost like a tribute to persons with H.I.V. virus: the eulogizer is just so enamored with the "courage" and "fortitude" of the future A.I.D.S. sufferer -- yet he would be absolutely nauseated if it were disclosed that he is also one of the sufferers.

Such is African ancestry in the U.S.

I have heard "blacks" in the U.S. defend their allegiance to using the slavemaster's one drop rule by saying that "black" culture is so powerful. More powerful than Japanese culture approximately 6,000 years old? If so, somebody better tell Japanese-American women who are out-marrying with "white" males at rates up to 50%.

I have seen U.S. "whites" get panic stricken at the thought of having African ancestry -- while simultaneously going to the trouble of using "tanning" machines.

Clearly there is something about African ancestry which needs to be looked at. And it will. The days of it being a criminalizing element are starting to end. Many of us here at Interracial Voice are part African -- and many of us don't feel like criminals or victims.

A final word of caution. Indian ancestry is not a criminalizing element. However, Indians are, in some parts of the U.S., in miserable shape. Latinos (who are not deemed as "black" by U.S. society) have a long way to go.

There are no pots of gold at the end of the rainbow -- just hard work to make certain that every person of any color gets the opportunity and respect he or she deserves.

William Javier Nelson, Ph.D.

---

---

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