Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Multicultural families

Here's where to share your experience of raising a child or growing up in a multicultural family.

Understanding the mixed races'(from black descent) black identity

216 replies

morine · 19/01/2010 23:47

Being a black person with mixed race ancestors, I am quite interested in the mixed race (from black descent) population.

For a whole year I have been trying to understand why there is a confusion in the identification of mixed race people (black descent) in the UK, especially about them being called black instead of mixed race.

I have noticed that this confusion is due to various reasons but the main one is the ignorance by many (white, black and mixed race themselves) about the significant heritage the mixed race owns due to his black background.

That?s why I am going to try to help people to understand the mixed race blackness and black identity, and why he has always been called black.

Just a quick clarification about ?black?. The term ?Black? is used to identify black Africans and their descendants. That means black people from the motherland (Africa) and the Diaspora (black people/African descendants outside the mother continent. Indians are not identified as black but as East Asians.

Back to history :
African people were deported in slavery from their continent to Europe, America and the Caribbean islands. They were sold as slaves to white landlords. The history of mixed race people starts when white masters sexually abused their female black slaves. The children of black slaves and their white masters were slaves. In spite of being mixed race/half white, they were not considered as human beings but as properties just like the pure black slaves.

Mixed race slaves in time of slavery were also working hard in fields and factories just like black slaves. Their punishment was the same as the ones inflicted on black slaves. Generally when a slave had been desobedient, he was beaten badly, sometimes to death, he was castrated, he would have one or several limbs of his body amputated (hands, arms, nose, ears?). Mixed race slaves as well as black slaves were passing through the same type of punishment.
Black women and teenagers as well as mixed race women and teenagers were raped by their white masters. This was due to the fact that at that time, a slave wasn?t a human being, he didn?t have any rights, he was the property of his white master and his master had the right to do whatever he wanted with his slave.
During a period of time, slaves became more and more expensive on the market. To save money, the white master sexually abused his black or mixed race slave to have her bear children (so more slaves). The mixed race children born from the black/mixed race slaves were the property of the white master. A woman slave could have up to 15 mixed race children born slaves. The white master could do whatever he wanted with the mixed race slave children. He would use some for work and he would sell others to other white masters to build up his finances. So at that time, families were also separated.

The black slave child as well as the mixed race slave child started to learn their slave work very early, around 5/6 years old. Generally they used to start to work and help their mother in the fields. Then when they got older, stronger and more robust, they would have their own slave work and work separately from their mother.
It is also important to underline that the Black African has very strong characteristics (physical features, skin colour, hair, physical strength?) that the mixed race has also inherited, which makes him more black than white ( I know there are special cases but here I am talking in general and in time of slavery).

It also happened that the white master?s wife cheated on him with a black/mixed race slave. The mixed race child born whether from a black/mixed race slave, or from a white woman was considered as a slave. Generally the white woman, even if she wanted to raise her mixed race child, she would not be able to as it was a shame for a white woman to have a black/mixed race baby, almost a crime at that time, so she would give the baby to a slave who would raise the child.
The slavery of black and mixed race people (1/2 & 1/4 black) lasted in total about 400 years.

At one period in history, towards the end of the slavery, the 1/4 black became a ?privileged? slave because of the lightness of his skin. This particular mixed race slave was always a bit controversal. He had less burdensome slave work or he would supervise the work of the other slaves. When a punishment had to be applied, he would inflict the punishment to the disobedient slaves under the orders of his white master. That?s why the 1/4 black slave sometimes was seen as a traitor by the black and mixed race (1/2) slaves.
In spite of this, all three slaves, the black, the mixed race 1/2 black and the mixed race 1/4 black, were properties. They all needed a letter of emancipation from their white master to be set free.

After the abolition of slavery, the black, the 1/2 black and the 1/4 black were free. Now they faced the white opression through the segregation and discrimination. They build their own culture and identity : The Black.

The civil right movement didn?t only involved black people, it also involved mixed race people (1/2
and 1/4 black). During that movement all of the three were fighting together under one identity and for one race : the black race. Black people stood up for mixed race people as they were in majority, and on the other hand mixed race also stood up for black people. Because they were 1/2 and 3/4 white, it was easier for them to be received and speak in front of the white authorities in the name of the entire black race. Black people and mixed race people were organizing marches, strikes, demonstrations, boycotts? to fight under one identity and for the dignity of one race : the Black one.

Black people and mixed race people are not only linked by their blood but also by their History and culture, by what they have experienced together, and by what they have fought for.

There is no confusion here about mixed race people identifying themselves as Black, they have the best reasons to do so. The confusion comes from those who have a lack of knowledge about the History, and I perfectly understand it. The history of black people (mixed race included) is not a priority in a westernized education system.

The mixed race of black descent is not like the other mixed races. The mixed race of black descent is unique, he is part of the History and the culture of black people. Not only is he part of them but he has also contributed to their building up.
So, that?s why instead of pigeonholing themselves in a less specific and vague term ?mixed race?, they are often identified as Black.

Having said that I will support the post of someone in a previous thread who said that being Black doesn?t refer to the colour of the skin, it is being part of a History and culture. It is being involved in the building up of a heritage and identity.

Why people don?t tell the true story to those who need to know?

?Black? should not be used in terms of colour. It is not an identity based on the colour of the skin but an identity based on a History, an experience and a culture. That?s why celebrities like Mariah Carey, who has a very light mixed race skin, identifies herself as Black.
Black slaves had different skin tones, from the very dark black shade to the very light one. The blackness goes far beyond the notion of colour.

Mixed race of black descent are special. They are not like the other mixed races. They have a black identity, strongly and directly linked with their black heritage, beyond the skin appearance. Their black heritage is uncomparable to their white heritage, they are active and involved in their black History, they made it, but they are passive in their white History. Their white heritage limits itself through the blood link, but their black heritage goes far beyond it.

Today mixed race people are totally free to choose how they want to be identified, it is a personal choice we all have to respect, but it is important that they understand their black identity and their blackness. If we respect the choice of those who identify themselves as mixed race, why shouldn?t we also respect the choice of those who have chosen to identify themselves as Black?

Mixed race of black descent have a history (they share with black people), that?s what makes them different to other mixed race. That?s why I find it a bit unfair to pigeonhole them in the same term (mixed race) as the other mixed race people.

I don?t know whether the term ?Black? is the right one but at least I believe it is perfectly justified. However the term ?mixed race?, although it defines their race duality, I just feel that it is not enough to identify this minority of light skinned black people who have suffered the burden of slavery and shed their blood in the process of promoting the value of the Black race.

Would it be better to combine the two? The term ?Black? for the recognition of their involvement in the black heritage and "mixed-race" for the recognition of their race duality?

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
rasputin · 23/01/2010 12:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

oldenglishspangles · 23/01/2010 12:30

racism even

oldenglishspangles · 23/01/2010 12:38

I know several mixed race people brought up by white parents in white areas. They had / have no little or ease / sense of their black cultural identity. No effort had been made to get bring them into contact with other black or mixed race children. There is an irony to racism they encountered given the only contact they had had with the back side of the ethnicity was the colour of their skin. I live in a white area take opportunities to talk about or highlight different cultures and religions. Where I can I try to make sure they play with children of different backgrounds. Its much less difficult to be racist if it is shown to be familiar and more importantly normal to be different.

oldenglishspangles · 23/01/2010 12:39

black not back

oldenglishspangles · 23/01/2010 12:40

should be 'it is not so easy to be racist if ...'

AitchTwoOhOneOh · 23/01/2010 12:43

okay, joey, you're just plain wrong. perceived sub-humanity was central to the historically widespread oppression of the jews (reaching a peak with mengele and the final solution where scientific sub-humanity essential to what went on etc) and also the barbarian muslims during the crusades. like i say, nothing could have been further from the truth.

LuckyJim · 23/01/2010 12:50

Surely all the 'you may take slaves from your neighbours country but not your own country' stuff in the bible is based on an opinion of superiority over other races. Didn't the Jews think the Philistines to be sub human

JoeyBettany · 23/01/2010 12:57

I think you've misundertood me aitch.
The people justifying the atlantic slave trade were attempting to scientifically categorize sub saharan africans as sub human/lesser human beings, purely to justify economic gain. Prior oppressions such as the crusades were not IMO so blatantly cynical.

The history of anti semitism is not the same. I agree that the Nazis took this to another level with the final solution but it was started by the Europeans and their love of the concept of the Great Chain of Being.

AitchTwoOhOneOh · 23/01/2010 13:03

of course it was just as cynical during the crusades, absolutely 100%, it was a land and riches grab. or does justifying racism via religion make it okay?

and you were the one who said that othello the moor was other but not inferior, i don't know much about black people's experience during elizabethan times but shylock is presented by shakespeare far more sympathetically than was normal so i don't think it's reasonable to take shakespeare as a definitive historical account. and there was a clear financial incentive for dehumanising jews at that time, in order to brutalise and steal from them.

once again on this thread, it's not that i don't understand your point, i just think that you are incorrect.

JoeyBettany · 23/01/2010 13:16

The fact is that even though Jewish and Muslim people may have been dehumanised in countless incidents prior to slavery, they were not put in chains , transported en masse to another continent and had their humanity and all civil rights taken away from them and subsequent generations. (not until 20th century anyway).

and this was then justified by the 'scientific' concept of racism (then new).

And what a useful concept it proved-also to justify the genocide of the Native Americans.

AitchTwoOhOneOh · 23/01/2010 19:24

"Pre-Enlightenment, in the age of Shakespeare,racism did not exist as we know it today. For example, Othello, the Moor, is acknowledged as foreign and maybe 'other' but certainly not as a sub human species."

but here is the statement of yours to which i'm replying. you said 'racism didn't exist as we know it today' prior to slavery. i just 100% dispute that.

JoeyBettany · 23/01/2010 20:06

None of us can ever know how much racism an individual would have experienced in this country pre-slavery, but IMO, based on history books I have read, it would not have been any different to how a French or Spainish person would have been treated, i.e differently , possibly with hostility, because they were foreign but not based on their skin colour. Slavery changed that forever.

Aitch, you're obviously interested in the history of black people in this country. If you don't believe me, why not read 'Staying Power' by Peter Fryer, which explains much better than me the history of how racism develops and how it is created by an agenda.

It was recommended to me by a tutor at uni (long ago) and it's very readable.It contains some very interesting facts, such as the fact that there were black soldiers (not slaves) here in roman times, and black courtiers at the court of Elizabeth I.

lollopops · 23/01/2010 20:38

I do somewhat, understand your sentiment OP and I hope I'm not sounding out of turn, but you do sound quite bitter? Which understandably a lot of people are, white or black about the slave trade.

My 3 children are mixed race. Regardless of the past and slavery. They are a mix of two races. I have yet to tell them about the history of slavery and I have yet to inform them that their great great (i think) grandfather was also responsible for putting jews etc in the gas chambers.

In fact, I may or may not tell them at all. It bears no impact on them as human beings, It might make them feel bad for being 'descendants' of slavery and upset at being 'descendants' of facism. I cannot see what purpose this would serve. I am not trying to ignore their history but I believe my children, especially the ages they are, have bigger and more important issues to face. Slavery, as well as Hitler, was a very sad time in history and I want my children to grow up with good rounded personalities and ethnic self-esteem.

Best of all, their skin colour doesn't really bother me, in fact, it doesn't really bother much of the immediate people they come into contact with. We are not slaves, we are all human. Racism will always, sadly be prevalent but thank God, slavery isn't.

AitchTwoOhOneOh · 23/01/2010 21:34

but joey, i have never disputed that racism has an agenda, or that it is an 'instinct' often engineered for monetary gain, all i've said is that to suggest that it didn't exist before slavery as per your earlier statement, is arrant nonsense when you take the crusades into consideration.

you responded that it was the first time that a group of people had been designated sub-human in order to support a way of behaving towards them. as 'the first crusade; a new history (the roots of conflict between christianity and islam) by THomas Asbridge details (seeing as we're swapping book lists), it was incumbent upon christians to de-humanise muslims and rank them as a lesser species in order to mount crusades and fight them.

what's interesting about your point, of course, is that it does relate to morine's (imo also flawed) point that people of mixed heritage that includes 'black' (whatever that is) should and will also be referred to as black. slavery was a terrible episode, and yes it has repercussions, but in this day and age it has to be up to the person themselves to dictate their label if they are equally proud of both parents' heritage. racism today is not defined by black history. in fact the crusades bear a real look during our islamophobic times.

morine · 23/01/2010 21:46

Rasputin:

The best thing, in my opinion, is to bring up your children in a place which is multicultural; so they can mix, interact and play with children from other ethnic backgrounds. Also where they can go to school with children from other backgrounds. The danger of being selective, i.e. only letting your children play with white children is that they will be more likely to be labelled (as they are the "odd ones out"!) Labels like "blackie", "darkie" and other derogatory names which will probably affect them badly. For example, someone I know, a mixed race young woman, has been affected by this in the past, and is still affected by it, as her white mum brought her up in a white area and she suffered this type of thing. She has been trying to connect to her black background when she got older. She is now married, but her lack of self confidence is taking time to go; she still has it for the time being.

OP posts:
morine · 23/01/2010 22:12

Oldenglishspangles

"I know several mixed race people brought up by white parents in white areas. They had / have no little or ease / sense of their black cultural identity. No effort had been made to get bring them into contact with other black or mixed race children. There is an irony to racism they encountered given the only contact they had had with the back side of the ethnicity was the colour of their skin. I live in a white area take opportunities to talk about or highlight different cultures and religions. Where I can I try to make sure they play with children of different backgrounds. Its much less difficult to be racist if it is shown to be familiar and more importantly normal to be different. "

I feel for you oldenglish, I am also live in a white area. It is hard for my children as they don't really have the opportunity to play with other children. Parents take their children away from mine, and the irony is that mums with mixed race children too behave the same. The mums I find more open are those with Indian partners, it is not the same mixture but they are always keen to talk.

We have stopped going to church in the area we are living in, every sunday we go to a multicultural church in another town, to try to give to our children the flavour of the other side of their background.

OP posts:
morine · 23/01/2010 22:18

JoeyBettany:

Do you think that the teaching of the positive side of black history would have a beneficial effect on those children who have been bullied, called names etc... and therefore felt inferior, so they can accept their blackness as something to be proud of?

OP posts:
oldenglishspangles · 24/01/2010 00:13

Morine its a shame that people would take their children away from yours. Doubly so the mixed race children. I always feel quite excited whenever I meet a new mixed race family ironically more so than when I meet new black or white families.

On your point about black history - I think the historical contributions of all races should be taught to all children/people. Its more difficult to feel superior when you recognise how much to modern world owes to different cultures.

Aitch I completely get your point about the crusades. The little I have read on it has been quite enlightening especially in relation to the films that I have seen that depict that era.

JoeyBettany · 24/01/2010 08:18

morine- of course it would and it's certainly something I emphasize with my own son (8)-in fact I have only recently mentioned slavery to him.(but have mary Seacole, pyramids etc long ago) He's growing up in a white rural area and so far has a very positive self image.

aitch-I disagree that medieval obscenities instigated by religious difference is the same as deliberately constructing racism-but obviously we're going to have to agree to disagree on this! .

lollopops · 24/01/2010 10:15

'I feel for you oldenglish, I am also live in a white area. It is hard for my children as they don't really have the opportunity to play with other children. Parents take their children away from mine, and the irony is that mums with mixed race children too behave the same. The mums I find more open are those with Indian partners, it is not the same mixture but they are always keen to talk'.

Is that really how is it morine? That really does suprise me. That really is a shame. I wonder now, whether your original post is because of things that are happening to you and your children now, iyswim. I feel sad for you if this is the case. My kids live in a 'white' area (how I hate using that term) and have never had any problems, apart from the odd bullying when they were younger. A lot of that was nothing to do with their colour, as you realise that bullies will pick on anyone who doesn't look like them. But then I have lived around this area for most part of my life, so I guess it's kind of different for me. How do your children feel about this? It must be upsetting

AitchTwoOhOneOh · 24/01/2010 11:14

religion = most powerful population persuasive tool at the time of crusades

science = most powerful population persuasive tool at the time of slavery

in both cases the ruling classed were just using what worked in order to get what they wanted.

but yes, like you say, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

JoeyBettany · 24/01/2010 11:15

the difference is though

you can choose your religion

you can't choose your skin colour

AitchTwoOhOneOh · 24/01/2010 11:20

bingobongo! that is such utter rubbish in the context of a true and profound faith (not to mention culture) that i am flabbergasted.

although i don't think the people being burned alive/tortured/raped/enslaved during the crusades (which our friend the Moor would have had in his family history) were exactly white, btw. their 'different' skin colour to the 'pure' christian was very much part of their oppression.

lollopops · 24/01/2010 11:27

JoeyBettany does have a point though. In this society, if you find your religion/faith oppressive or unfulfilling, in most cases, you can opt out.

It may not be easy for other people, but as a general rule, you can. If you are of a certain skin colour: white, blue, pink etc, you subscribe to whatever society wants to throw at you.

AitchTwoOhOneOh · 24/01/2010 13:00

no, joeybettany's point relates to pre-slavery and the crusades. that's what we've been discussing, that according to joey there never was a sustained attempt to dehumanise a population in order to abuse them. plainly, it's not the case.

and in any event, the muslims' skin colour was used to dehumanise them, as was the jewish faginesque stereotype features of big nose, long chin etc.