Guest Editorial

"Is There Any Way Out for 'Blacks' ?"
By William Javier Nelson

Before I begin, let me say that I anticipate (hope) that this essay will generate more questions than it answers.

The Washington Post recently published an article on "Interracial Marriage" as the last in a series of related pieces. Written by Post staffer, Michael A. Fletcher, the article paints a promising picture of continued and increasing rates of intermarriage between members of "minority groups" and caucasians "whites". Fletcher states that, "Today, almost one-third of U.S.-born Hispanics (Latinos) ages 25 to 34 are married to non-Hispanic whites. In addition, 36 percent of young Asian Pacific American men born in the United States marry white women, and 45 percent of U.S.-born Asian Pacific women took white husbands. The vast majority of Native Americans also marry whites."

African Americans are not in this picture. Their rates of out-marriage to whites are fairly low. Though increasing substantially, the numbers and percentages of "black"/"white" couples do not approach interracial liasons common to other groups. African American women are particularly absent from this process.

When one combines this endogamous (marrying within one's group) isolation of African Americans with the tendency of offspring in Asian/"white", Latino/"white" and Indian/"white" unions to be considered and labeled "white", a picture comes to mind of a beige America emerging which is subject to precisely the same assimilative "Americanizing" processes which united the various European immigrants a century ago. Both processes are marked by an absence of African Americans.

If that is not bad enough for African Americans, Fletcher has another bitter pill to throw the "black" reader: "Almost one in three children whose fathers are white and mothers black identified themselves as white, according to an analysis of 1990 census data done by Harvard University sociologist Mary C. Waters. That was almost a 50% increase over 1980, when fewer than one in four children with black mothers and white fathers identified as white, a surprising change in a nation that for generations promoted the idea that even one drop of black blood makes one black". Although this data does not deal with the more numerous "black" father/"white" mother unions, the message is clear: One Drop is eroding among those "blacks" who do interracially marry.

So, according to Fletcher, what we have potentially happening in the 21st century is a permanent, isolated "black" group which practices endogamy, remains outside the "American mainstream" and does not even have the previously exercised luxury of using One Drop to corral lighter-skinned persons with "black" ancestry into the "black" group. Instead of "black" versus "white" it's "black" versus beige. As if to underline this, Fletcher devotes considerable space in his article to detailing (a) the erosion of "white"/Asian barriers and (b) "white" and Asian evident dislike of "blacks".

Is there any way out for "blacks"? Are "blacks" always going to be in a status separated from most others in the United States?

In order to answer that question, let's go back to Fletcher's statistics of heavy outmarriage of other, "non-'black' " minority groups to "whites". One may look at this outmarriage using the rationale that "whites" consider these persons more suitable marriage partners than "blacks" -- or one may say that these "non-black" minorities are more desirous of intermarrying "whites" than "blacks" are. These statements beg the following questions: (a) Why are "non-'blacks' " more suitable marriage partners for "whites" than "blacks"? and (b) Why would "non-'black' " minorities be more desirous of marrying "whites" than "blacks" are?

It is my opinion that, in order to even ask, let alone answer these questions, one must plough through dogma, ideology and emotional baggage existing with this whole idea of "blackness" and "whiteness" which necessarily skews any treatment of this simple statement: all those born here and/or who claim a U.S. nationality are North Americans. It is my further contention that "blacks" are now trapped in a One Drop bifurcationist ideology which they may not have invented but which nevertheless makes them loyal to a "race" before a nationality -- and which makes them quite comfortable with the idea of being permanent victims separated from other North Americans.

On the other hand, Japanese Americans, heirs to a legacy of a 6,000 year old Asian culture, nevertheless easily slough that off to adapt to their new "Americanness" (soon-to-be "whiteness"); Latinos, proud bearers of Pre-Columbian and African traditions, modify them -- and marry "whites". And the same type of thing goes for most other "non-'black' " minority groups.

Clearly Fletcher has given African America something to think about.

The thoughtful reader has noticed that my previous writings have optimistically pointed to a future in which "racial" lines are blurred -- while not exempting "blacks" from taking part in the show. In fact, Time magazine also anticipated this with a fall 1993 issue with a computer-generated woman on the cover which talked about the "New Face of America". The woman was 15% Anglo-Saxon, 17.5% Middle Eastern, 7.5% Asian, 35% Southern European, 7.5% Latino and 17.5% African.

"Blacks" will join the rest of North Americans -- but they will join them contigent on modifying their current strategies -- strategies which have done much good in the past, but which must be changed as we go into the new millenium.

William Javier Nelson

Also of interest by William Javier Nelson: