1. I have always believed that the one drop rule was stupid. It was used to expand the slave population and resulted in as many people passing for black as they did passing for white. Think about it, you say you are black but you belong to a blue vein society, use the paper bag test and comb test.

2. If can't accept that there are people who voted for Obama because he not only bi-racial but was only connected to Black experience (slavery, Jim Crow, Civil right movement) through Michelle, you need to have your head checked.
Was it really a surprise that a mulatto was the first person of color elected president. He's black but not that kind of black.

3. Maybe we should emphasis that people like Mariah and Halle are bi-racial. I don't think it matters for boys but too many little girls grow up with unrealistic ideas of what black beauty is. The truth of the matter is most of us don't have light skin, light eyes and "good hair". How can they not grow up with self esteem issues if they are bombarded with messages telling them that this beautiful and if you don't meet this standard, you are not.

I'm just sayin'

When it becomes socially acceptable for me to tell white folks about themselves without fear of retaliation or repercussion will be the day that this argument gets some credence from me. Just saying.

I'm not suprised that trash like this would show up on Andrew Breitbart's blog. It is so funny that the descendants of the same folks who determined that one drop of black blood (which is stupid, I mean how can you tell?) makes you black are now trying to throw it out the window, deny that their ancestors had anything to do with setting it up and act like it is some black racial hegemony forcing people to conform to blackness. Also, for all the folks he named, I KNOW that there are black folk in prison who are just as "white" or mixed as they are and nobody is runnign around trying to call them white or mixed race, they call them straight up black folk. And as people say again and again, you have President Obama pre-election and campaign standing on a corner in NYC trying to get a cab, cabbies wouldn't say "oh he's half white so we can pick him up" they say "another black dude, he might rob me even though he is well-dressed in a conservative suit" and I bet if any of those folks this guy mentioned were in a police line-up no one would remark on their "mixed-ness" See now that black people of all hues are being recognized for accomplishing amazing, outstanding things (which we have always done but it was overlooked before and often still is) white folks who used to disown "mulattoes" are now trying to claim them. It makes me sick.

Believe me, I just wish we didn't have to identify race at all. One day (maybe in the year 3210) I hope we don't have to call ourselves as black, white or mulatto. BTW, Derek Jeter isn't known as a black person? That's news to me.

People self identify as Black because they know that's how they are seen when they walk into a shop. I look at folks I know whose white mothers tried to raise them as bi-racial (because God forbid that woman admit she made a Black looking baby). Many have been socialized to believe other folks won't see them as Black. If their father's don't step in, they usually live this way until they hit double digits. That's often the first time where they are made to feel different from their peers. But it's in their late teens when the doo-doo hits the fan.

However, when the mother is Black and the father is white, the kids seem to never need a wake-up call because mommy has socialized them in a way which prepares them for the realities of being seen as Black.

But then, folks only say this stuff when a mixed Black person self-identifies and that person has done something good.

Please tell me that Prelutsky was not born in the U.S. and doesn't know about the one drop rule. A quick google search informs me that he was born in Chicago, so I will just chalk this up to sheer absurdity. Aren't white people the ones who came up with the one drop rule in the first place in order to keep their "pure" bloodlines? After they came up with the rule, white people then fought tooth and nail to make sure it was enforced. Now that it is pervasive and bi-racial people (the fact that he uses the term "mulatto" just makes him seem more antiquated and ignorant) are identifying as black, he can't understand why?? PLEASE! I also find it interesting that this didn't become a problem until people who are bi-racial started becoming successful while still identifying as black. My stance is that if Prelutsky wasn't trying to claim Halle, Mariah, Tiger and Barack before they became famous, he can't try to claim them now.

Mulatto indeed.....That word always brings a cup of hot, steaming, milky coffee to my mind and I find it hard to use the term or take its meaning seriously as a result.

Besides, mixed sounds a whole lot better than some coffee sounding name, to me anyway.

I'm going to need for this dude to stop using mulatto (as one of my good friends would say "I'm not a mule.") Also, I'd like for him to think about who invented the "one drop rule" (great point Lisa J.) and why someone like Halle Berry, who was raised by a white mother, would still identify herself as Black. Also, let's stop pretending, as his diatribe does, that Black people or people of color are the only one's who name these people as Black. I've never met a white person who ever talked about how Halle Berry was beautiful for a whit or mixed woman...

wasn't the one drop rule used by whites to categorize blacks as the lowest on the socio-economic pecking order? do you really want to use THIS "logical" thought process?

This person (Burt Prelutsky ) has no historical perspective on this subject. Historically so-called Mulattoes where always considered Black. That set the precedent and that's why most bi-racial (Black and White) people identify as Black. Also it was historically Black people who accepted Bi-racial people, Whites did not.

The One Drop Rule is not something we should hold onto with pride like it's a good thing. It was and is bad thing. If folks are mixed and they want to claim their component heritages, why should anyone stand in the way of that?

"The One Drop Rule is not something we should hold onto with pride like it's a good thing. It was and is bad thing. "

lmao, i know right. folks are sometimey as HELL.

"If folks are mixed and they want to claim their component heritages, why should anyone stand in the way of that?"

because they're insecure of their own legacy and contribuion.

Well, I think its up to the individual to define themselves based on their history, subculture and life experiences. If those three amounted to the black experience for them and they are comfortable with that, why not identify with it? If they were accepted by dual cultures and that has been their life story, they should embrace that. Its not for us to decide no more than it is my business whether you wear your hair natural or relaxed. The Internet has made us a culture of busy bodies who want to micromange the world based on our rules.

"The One Drop Rule is not something we should hold onto with pride like it's a good thing. It was and is bad thing. If folks are mixed and they want to claim their component heritages, why should anyone stand in the way of that?"

Scipio Africanus and Swiv, there's plenty of African Americans who have no problem with mixed people claiming both sides of their heritage. I'm one of them. What I don't like though is what swiv said:

"because they're insecure of their own legacy and contribution."

Oh really??? Non mixed-Black Americans ARE aware of how we contributed to America. Besides it was the mixed blacks who were given preferential treatment which made them more prosperous and able to help "the cause" so this coherency helped greatly. Otherwise we would be like Afro-Brazilians who were brainwashed to splinter themselves with Slave master made up divisions based on artificial physical differences, such as considering a medium brown person with kinky hair a" different race" than a dark brown person with wavy hair.

And can we clear the air here? What this is really about is how some mixed and white people see black as inferior and use the term mixed as an "upgrade." I think this is the point that Daniel was trying to make. I'm also sick of people trying to divide black people based on physical characteristics when we're ALL MIXED! I notice an odious double standard of allowing mixed and white people to transcend race but require dark-skinned blacks to be categorized as black. People like Andrew Breitbart, are being two-faced as they still implicitly support racial categories for mono-racial people. But like I said Black Americans aren't mono-racial. Why can't I call myself mixed? What if all black Americans were to all themselves mixed? Then what?

This is simply a power game of those who get the privilege of being raceLESS and those who don't. White supremacy stands on --depends on-- having a black base.

What about Halle Berry's daughter? Is she consider Black seeing she only have one Grandparent who is/was black.

liz,
I would say insecurity *is* at play, but rather than it being from contribution, the insecurity is based on a fear of rejection. That is, folks who protest too much over this may feel that they are being rejected by our mixed family cousins. Tiger *really* caught it from folks with his Cablanasian comment back in the 90's, and the reaction of scorn and ridicule he invoked from us is rooted in that sense of "regular black folks" being rejected.
I totally agree that some people do try to run away from their blackness and claim their other heritages more loudly than they claim their blackness. But for real for real, I ususally see that mostly going down with black folks most of us would consider "regular black" claiming all types of Indian, Cherokee, Shawnee, Chickasaw, Commanche, Arapaho, Aztec, Eskimo, Kimono Dragon. Do folks have Indian blood? Yes. Alot of us do. Is the average black person with Indian blood connected to it in a meaningful cultural way? Probably not. At least in my experience. But I'm digressing.
The main point is that most of the people I know who are geneologically recently mixed *don't* run away from their blackness when it comes time to cliam stuff. It's typically "regular" black people who do that.

folks seem to be missing the point
the issue isn't 'what should we call people of mixed parentage?' or 'what is the best racial label for black/other biracials?', deciding which slave society based classification method (people tend to forget this history when arguing Latin America is 'better') is best
what is being discussed is this mentality that 'black people', scary monolith that we are, are forcing those with mixed backgrounds to call themselves and identify as black
because of course no one with the option to be something other than 'just black' would choose a black identity

the implication is clearly that no one would want to be black or associated with blacks if they had options, so it is assumed light/mixed/biracial individuals that do so are only buckling to pressure from THE BLACK COMMUNITY **cue ominous music** not employing the universal right to self-identify as one wants and/or reflecting their own personal experiences, culture and sense of heritage

replacing one messed up system for classifying/boxing/defining people with another is not progress, neither is an insincere endorsement of freedom to self-identify that is intertwined with the presumption that no one wants to be black... some of us just HAVE to be

karayan,
"Why would anyone want to be black?" was afronerd's sensationalistic way to introduce the post. If you read the quote it says nothing like that at all. In fact, the quote is quite unobjectionable and speaks to mixed folks being proud of their white side *too*. If Afronerd had beef with the blog, s/he chose a really poor section of the blog to object to.

Scipio Africanus,

It's you who's missing the point. The title explains directly what the post is saying implicitly and karayan and others are picking up on it.

Karayan, Dido to your post! You said what I said!

"Non mixed-Black Americans ARE aware of how we contributed to America."

apparently this explains why so many are so concerned with who claims what. this also explains why so much vitriol was directed at tiger woods (who is more asian than black) for claiming everything. if so many non-mixed black americans were aware of black americans contribution, then so much time wouldn't be wasted worrying about who is what.

"What this is really about is how some mixed and white people see black as inferior and use the term mixed as an "upgrade."

how much of this is white or mixed people viewing black as being inferior as black people viewing black as inferior?

like i said in another blog.....how much would be accomplished if less time was spent worrying about what white (or mixed people) thought and more time was spent worrying about the racial disparities in health, in crime, ect.

What about Halle Berry's daughter? Is she consider Black seeing she only have one Grandparent who is/was black.

This is the sort of question that should be posed to the individual in question, not to random Internet strangers.

Interesting post and even more interesting comments.
I would love to to see a post devoted to Ms Smart's post
"However, when the mother is Black and the father is white, the kids seem to never need a wake-up call because mommy has socialized them in a way which prepares them for the realities of being seen as Black."

@ monica How is real black being connected to Jim Crow or the civil rights movement? I'm black and I don't have a true connection to that beyond a history book.

@butterflyprincess: I completey agree. i'd love to see a post dedicated to why biracial children from bw/wm relationships seem to be more grounded in reality FROM BIRTH as opposed to those from bm/ww relationships. imo i think it has a lot to do with black women being more aware of the complexities of race in society than bm and ww. after all, white women are at the top of the racial hierarchy in beauty and a lot of the black men who procreate with them are running from blackness and fully consent to the children being raised "colorblind" or "transcending" said blackness.

@scipio africanus: I disagree with your conclusion. At least based on my own, my circle of friends and family's reaction to Tiger's sad self-description:

Tiger *really* caught it from folks with his Cablanasian comment back in the 90's, and the reaction of scorn and ridicule he invoked from us is rooted in that sense of "regular black folks" being rejected.

My flat-out disdain and pity for the Casblasian moniker, that was shared in my little circle was the sheer absurdity of the placement of a Caucasian marker *first* and actually *at all* in his struggle to name himself when one parent was African descent and the other Asian. Yes, all you racial Liberatarians, to preempt your outrage he can name himself. It doesn't mean that he didn't make himself out to be a damn fool. Blasian/asiablck/hip/hop/paddywack

What was telling, IMIO, of the episode goes right back to the heart of Prelutsky's post. In that moment, Tiger revealed less about his actual racial mix than his actual racial aspiration. [See Leonard Pitts' great column today in re the Sammy Sosa skin lightening story]

Prelutsky would have readers believe that it's pressure from black people that's the problem. @ Lisa J: cosign on the scary black racial hegemony. Remember, folks, this was on the Big *Hollywood* blog -- the industry that made Imitation of Life and cast a white actress in the lead!