|
|
Post by Subuatai on Jul 29, 2009 9:23:13 GMT -5
America still has race on birth certificates? O.O
That's surprising considering it's a well-developed country.
In Australia there is none, only "Place of birth" for the parents.
|
|
|
|
Post by milkman's baby on Jul 29, 2009 20:05:53 GMT -5
It has nothing to do with being a well-developed country. Although racial identification has been proven to aid profiling and discrimination, it serves practical purposes for law enforcement. Also, race on birth certificates helps genealogy research.
|
|
|
|
Post by jefe on Jul 30, 2009 15:27:00 GMT -5
America still has race on birth certificates? O.O That's surprising considering it's a well-developed country. In Australia there is none, only "Place of birth" for the parents. Sorry, but I was not born yesterday.  It has nothing to do with being a well-developed country. Although racial identification has been proven to aid profiling and discrimination, it serves practical purposes for law enforcement. Also, race on birth certificates helps genealogy research. I really don't think race on birth certificates helps much of anything -- if anything, it is misleading. As I said, my birth certificate said both my parents were white, which is clearly wrong, but perhaps helped to satisfy the social problem of avoid glaring anti-miscegenation infraction. It serves social purposes, not effective for genealogical research. My father's birth certificate was completely wrong. Fake names for both parents, wrong name for himself, wrong birthdate, wrong birth places and birth dates for parents -- you tell me how that is valuable in any way whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by milkman's baby on Jul 30, 2009 17:29:32 GMT -5
Well yeah, it's no value if the person who filled it out was a dumbass. Just like it would be of no value if the person at the DMV put me down as blonde hair and blue eyes. It's a way of identifying someone. Black hair and dark eyes doesn't cut it. Saying a person is black or Asian helps, in addition to unfortunately aiding profiling.
And yes it does affect genealogical research. My father was doing research and managed to trace some of his ancestors back to England. He was able to see that one of his great, great, great grandmothers was black from her birth certificate. She has an English name, so had he not known that, he might have looked for the wrong person's birth certificate in attempts to trace other ancestors back to England.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flat Top on Jul 30, 2009 19:04:06 GMT -5
Birth and marriage certificates in my state don't ask race. You don't need it. Forms in this state do ask complexion which I think is helful....dark or fair. Hair color, eye color is good enough but even then you can always color your hair or wear fake contacts. You can always add birthmarks, tattoos, piercings etc for identifiers.
|
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jul 30, 2009 19:53:45 GMT -5
In 1970, there was a famous case in Louisiana Supreme Court (why do I know so much about Louisiana?) where a blonde-hair blue-eyed woman by the name Susie Guillory Phipps tried changing the race on her birth certificate from "coloured" to "white". This case had the potential of becoming landmark history. Who exactly determines someone's race in the U.S.? The government or the individual?
Both sides trotted out their witnesses and experts. One researcher claimed that 20% of whites have black ancestry and by the state's One Drop Rule, those white Americans should be "coloured" black retroactively. In the end, the state side-stepped the issue and ruled that neither the government or the individual decided a person's race. Since both of Ms. Phipps parents were coloured and they both identified their child as being coloured, Ms. Phipps could not change her race. In other words, her dead parents were the ones who decided and the state was obliged to follow their wishes.
But Louisiana has an interesting history. Ms. Phipps was Cre-ole (why is the word censored?). Before the Civil War, Cre-oles and Blacks thought of each other as a separate race. It was only afterwards as the South re-segregated along a strict black/white divide that the Cre-oles were lumped in with the Blacks. The effect is well known in music history. Classically trained Cre-ole instrumentalist who once played for white audiences were forced out of the scene. When they got together with the blacks they began experimenting with their folk tunes and started to produce a whole new sound: Dixieland, swing, and jazz. Race isn't fair, but something beautiful came out of this tragedy. I can't imagine life without jazz. It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing, doo-ah doo-ah doo-ah doo-AH....
|
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jul 30, 2009 21:14:23 GMT -5
Why is someone a bigot if they're trying to fight the One Drop Rule? Her race is her business. And if the government's concept of race treads on cultural history because of new segregation oriented racialism, who is the bigot? Do you think you can look at her and tell her what she should be?
|
|
|
|
Post by Flat Top on Jul 30, 2009 22:54:49 GMT -5
Phipps was a bigot. She thought she was white for 40+ years of her life, and claimed to be sick for days after she found out she was "colored". She only found out when she needed to see her birth certificate to obtain a passport. She sued because she didn't want her descendants, or anyone else for that matter, to think of her as anything else but white. WTF? WTF?  maybe she was a bigot but based on your quote above how can she be bigoted. You spend 40 years of your life being white then to discover that by LAW you aren't what you culturally identify or not what you see in the mirror. I would be sick for days too if the government prevented me from being my racial/cultural identity. Screw my parents. They aren't telling or documenting what I am. I'm not going to have the government dictate what I am. What I say is what I am, accept it or go kill yourself (not you personally Pelle but anyone who dares falsely documents me). Further what's wrong with wanting your descendants to know what you REALLY are? |
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jul 31, 2009 0:45:04 GMT -5
No but her parents are mixed and put her race down as their own, mixed. I am not telling her who she should be her own family did. It has no bearing on her life at all, it just offended her to be 'colored'. The one drop rule is bs, and a moot point today really. She doesn't need a piece of paper to tell her who she is at 43, she should know. This was 1977 btw, segregation wasn't an issue. At least not officially. Now I see where you are confused. "Coloured" does not mean mixed or mulatto. You're either black or white. Even if you're <1% black, you are still black. Our president is black--not half white. That is why white people can think he's racist. That is the One Drop Rule we have in the States. I mentioned it as one of the legacies of segregation and how before segregation the concept wasn't as strict, Cre-oles (descendants of French colonials and their slaves) being an example. I think people now and then were more offended at her trying to be white. Just my Southern intuition. That uppity black woman done think she can change her color with Yankee lawyers. Let's say this fine "coloured" couple were her parents. She is the baby on the right. At some point that baby is going to question her race and the One Drop Rule.  It's a racial caste system and people like Ms. Phipps undermine that system because they make people see it for what it is. People judge your race by your appearance. And if your appearance doesn't match your race, but they still find a way to keep you in that category, then it is not a race system you're stuck in. It's a caste system. India is good example of how a race system survived and remained as a caste system. It was never about race. That was just a convenient excuse. |
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jul 31, 2009 4:38:15 GMT -5
Colored (This article is about the term used for African-Americans.) If I say anymore, I'll be repeating myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Jul 31, 2009 6:40:32 GMT -5
Despite what many Anglos like to propagate, India did not have a race system, their traditional social system never survived. Before British rule a person could be a doctor, another could be a cleaner, neither discriminated each other on occupation, color, or birth. During British rule the present light-black and occupational caste system was imposed. Light = british colonials, black = native slaves.
This is coming from native Indians in their 40s and 50s whom I met during my travels earlier this year. I ignorantly criticized them for a system they never had before British rule, but at least they do acknowledge that it's a problem. Unfortunately colonial mentality is still active in their minds that much is true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flat Top on Jul 31, 2009 9:08:50 GMT -5
pelle I agree with what Ms. Philips did. Only one part of that article bothered me. she tried to claim or hope her ancestor was dark not black. Okay I'm all for her fighting for HER whiteness but she has to accept even though SHE is white, her ancestors weren't all white. I totally understand her wanting her descendants to know what she TRULY REALLY is. She is a white woman. It's how she grew up. It's what she saw in the mirror. It's how she was raised. If her descendants do research on her, she wants to be represented as to what she is, how she lived her life, and what she knew. Her parents failed big time if they had any hope she'd be "coloured." As long as Ms. Philips fought only for herself, I'm fine. Now if she started trying to change her parents races then I'd find fault with her actions. I really don't get the attitude that blacks can be mixed and can come in all colors but God forbid a white to have any mixed blood or come in various looks. Why is white such a precious race that must be kept pure? And don't tell me it's all whitey's fault because other races continue to place the white race on such a pedestal that it can't remain the holiest white if it's touched by another race. White is no better than black or Asian. There are Asians who are mixed with white. There are blacks who are mixed with white. It's all fair for there to be whites mixed with Asian or black. I will NEVER look upon whites as so superior that they can't be mixed and come in all shades and features. I'm sorry but my parents are their races and I'm mine. I was raised a certain way and no way in hell will my parents tell me what my race is unless we're in agreement. thankfully my birth certificate doesn't list my race. It lists theirs not mine. I've been spared from any "trauma." Thank God because I don't know what I'd do.  ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by jefe on Jul 31, 2009 12:49:18 GMT -5
This was 1977 btw, segregation wasn't an issue. At least not officially. I remember 1977 very well and segregation was still a very big issue even in 1977. Many areas / instututions still maintained de facto segregation and often were subjected to court ordered DESEGREGATION. And it was extremely important to categorize people by race. It was the essential key to measure desegregation and to ensure the efficacy of affirmative action. |
|
|
|
Post by jefe on Jul 31, 2009 13:02:05 GMT -5
Colored (This article is about the term used for African-Americans.) If I say anymore, I'll be repeating myself. Yes, I remember the 60s/ 70s. Colored referred to the same idea that African-American does today. Whites were separated from Coloreds. My grandparents typically used the word colored in daily speech to refer to African-Americans (as used today). It did not refer to people of Native American, East / Southeast or South Asian descent. And its use was not limited to mixed race individuals. When Obama was born, the polite form of speech at that time would have been to say he had a colored father and a white mother, and therefore was also colored. The word black was not popular until the late 60s- early 70s, as a term to replace the segregationalist terms of Colored and Negro. Likewise, ASIAN did not replace the use of ORIENTAL until the late 1970s. In 1977, there was a place to tick ORIENTAL, no use of the word Asian. Asian first appeared in the 1980 census. This was in the USA of course. In the UK, Colored tends to refer to mixed race individuals similar to South Africa. And Asian refers to people of South Asian descent. A curious thing -- Chinese south Africans of mainland Chinese descent were labelled as "coloured", but those of Taiwanese descent as "white", to match South Koreans and Japanese. |
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Aug 1, 2009 21:45:37 GMT -5
I'm not talking about colonial history. I'm talking about ancient history--around the time of the Indo-Aryan invasion. The reason why it's now a "caste" system is because centuries of intermixing erased any distinction of race. Now they discriminate "just because" by birth, their "invisible race". |
|
maybe she was a bigot but based on your quote above how can she be bigoted. You spend 40 years of your life being white then to discover that by LAW you aren't what you culturally identify or not what you see in the mirror. I would be sick for days too if the government prevented me from being my racial/cultural identity. Screw my parents. They aren't telling or documenting what I am. I'm not going to have the government dictate what I am. What I say is what I am, accept it or go kill yourself (not you personally Pelle but anyone who dares falsely documents me). Further what's wrong with wanting your descendants to know what you REALLY are?
;D