The One Drop Rule…

The One Drop Rule…Just when I was about to kick back at lunch and read this weeks issue of 52 (where my boy Black Adam kicks much tail) I have to get all sociological...Let me tell you how this started…

Many of you may have heard about the decision of the Cherokee Nation in regard to its members (or former members) of mixed (particularly mixed with African) ancestry. I heard about it listening to the BBC (yes it made the international news) and of course had a serious problem with the racial implications of the actions of the Cherokee Nation’s vote.

Bloggers all over have been commenting on this decision, which has lead to a lot of discussions. I made a comment about this on a blog I visit from time to time. My comment was: “The Cherokee nation is bogus on that one. These folks have more than just the typical “We got Indian in us” line that some African Americans toss around to prove they have the “good hair” for some other reason than a perm. We are best advised to love ourselves and take pride in our primary ancestry from the peoples of Africa. Maybe this will put an end to some African Americans need to wear any other blood but the blood of their African ancestors with pride.”

Really, I didn’t expect much commentary on my statement, it was really quickly typed, and I thought simply put and clear as I headed out to the local comic shop to pick up “52”, but before I could go to lunch, I had a few comments directed at what I had written. I believed what I wrote was pretty clear, however; some took my statement to mean something I didn’t intend. My big sis Monnie thought that I might “believe in the one drop rule…” Now, I was going to post the proceeds of the discussion as I was trying to put in context what I was saying, but in re-reading, this one drop rule thing kind of stuck out.

For those of you unfamiliar with the “One Drop Theory”, here it is (from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_drop_rule):

The one-drop theory (or one-drop rule) is a historical colloquial term in the United States that holds that a person with any trace of sub-Saharan ancestry (however small or invisible) can not be considered white and so unless said person has an alternative non-white ancestry they can claim, such as Native American, Asian, Arab, Australian aboriginal, they must be considered black.

Of course I think that definition is silly, but of my blood statement: “…Maybe this will put an end to some African Americans need to wear any other blood but the blood of their African ancestors with pride…” this was brought up.

First, let me state for the record, the following: I believe that we (African Americans, Blacks, etc.) should not elevate our non-Black African ancestry above our Black African Ancestry, and we should above all take pride in that (our Black African Ancestry), because that is the uniting factor (or should be the uniting factor) in all of us from Brazil to Vancouver. And though I used the term "above all" loosely, I believe people should elevate our “Black African” ancestry at least as much as anything else, however, I realized, that really isn’t the problem.

The problem is that many of us want to focus on and offset our "Black Africaness" with any other ethnicity that we have no matter how little of it we have.  We have a reversed “One Drop” rule we tend to see utilized, that being, if we have any other blood besides Black African, no matter how little, we strive to connect to that and focus on that ABOVE ALL ELSE. That to me is a tragedy.

Of course I am not saying that a person should not be proud of ALL of their heritage, one should not deny themselves. For example I have serious Scottish ancestry. When I went to the UK, I meet some folks with my family last name, they had the family history, knew who went to the states and Canada, knew who had children with their slaves even and they accepted me as family, and thusly my reddish / brown hair from when I was a kid was explained (lol). If I so desired to identify with my Scottish ancestry primarily (or my other non-Black ancestry) or more to the point BRING IT UP all the time to show that I am not "100% Black African", that isn’t a necessarily a problem. Yet seeing as my African Ancestry is most visible, my motive for claiming “Scottish” would be suspect at the least .

My motive could be a problem, let’s say if my primary motive was to act as though that my Scottish ancestry made me somehow better than being of just regular ole’ Black African Ancestry, that in my humble opinion would be a problem. Uplifting ones non-Black African ancestry while ignoring or in some cases denying ones Black African ancestry is a self esteem or self value problem in my humble opinion.

Further, the fact that visibly, I am a person of Black African Ancestry, I should be proud of that with or without my Scottish ancestry. Some brothers and sisters (present company of course excepted) tend to be very prideful of their other ancestry and have no pride or knowledge of (or desire of knowledge of) their Black African ancestry. Which leads me to think about every person I have heard state vigorously that “I got Indian in me”, and in all but 1 case, they had no idea what nation of Indian (presupposing that their assertion were true). Yet ask same said person about there African ancestry, and vehemently they would answer:

a) I am not an African!!

b) I don’t know, I really don’t like African’s anyway, they don’t like American Blacks

Or the ever popular:

c) I don’t know, don’t care…etc., etc. When in fact, they couldn’t answer because they have had no desire to know about their Black African ancestry.

Why? Because they value the other ethnicities that comprise them (no matter how few drops of blood that is) and have little if any value in their African ancestry. Hell, even if they were as dark as Wesley Snipes after taking a bath in a vat of oil, they were quick to point out they were not ONLY of Black African ancestry. Now one of my fellow bloggers replied: “But DJ, I do think that your reverence for Africa overlooks our diluted bloodlines as well as African’s diverse ethnic heritages” To which I replied:

Not at all, I look at the people of the African Diaspora as unique, a unique tribe of people. Our ancestry in most cases is not 100% Black African, and our African Ancestry comes from West, East, North and South Africa so we come from a multitude of tribes and peoples. We are all mixed up; true enough, so our point of commonality is that Black African ancestry that unites or should unite us, as when we got to the Americas our tribal and ethnic differences went to the wayside pretty quickly and our varying tribal Black African affiliations soon became merged into one people.

Again I added: “…I believe that we (African Americans, Blacks, etc.) should not elevate our non-Black African ancestry above our Black African Ancestry, and we should above all take pride in that (our Black African Ancestry), because that is the uniting factor (or should be the uniting factor) in all of us from Brazil to Vancouver.

We are children of Diaspora in the Americas, our ancestors endured that we might have an opportunity to prosper and excel in a time when our skin color would not matter as much, and we have excelled and prospered and continue to do so. Be that we come from Detroit, New York, New Orleans, Memphis, Atlanta, Puerto Rico, Brazil, Haiti, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, etc., etc. we are brethren from a common place and point in history.

However, that is if we want to be Brethren. I have learned that you can’t make anyone be apart of something they are running from.

As Rakim wisely said:

"...but remember You’re not a slave, Cause we was put here to be much more than that but we couldn’t see it because our mind was trapped… "

Looking forward to you all's thoughts on the matter.

Comments

[SUGAR]

Very powerful DJ Black Adam!!!

I especially like this part:

"I believe that we (African Americans, Blacks, etc.) should not elevate our non-Black African ancestry above our Black African Ancestry, and we should above all take pride in that (our Black African Ancestry), because that is the uniting factor (or should be the uniting factor) in all of us from Brazil to Vancouver."

It's really sad that so many of us are ashamed of our "blackness" that they will try with all their might to associate with another group.

I would trade my soulful aura for nothin' in this world! (lol)

[DJ Black Adam]

@Sugar:

We are in full agreement with that my sister.

[VERB]

It's truly sad when W/we are so desperate to be something else that W/we overlook what W/we are. I'm not overlooking the fact that most of U/us are of mixed heritage, but how pathetic to grab at something else in an attempt to run away from O/ourselves. It's a sickness...Willie Lynch in full effect.

[BronzeTrinity]

Great post. I didn't hear about the Cherokee thing before. Another place where the reverse one drop rule is being used is in the argument over whether the ancient Egyptians (who built the Egyptian empire) were black. If you use the one drop rule then they were. But many historians are fighting for the reverse one drop rule. They say that the people were white or Arab because they were a mixed race. But if everyone there looked like Halle Berry and Lenny Kravitz, I would say they were black and biracial, definitely not white. The one drop rule is changed whenever it suits the people in power. They don't want to recognize any ancient civilizations that were created or strongly influenced by black people.

[lola gets]

Excellent post!

L

[CreoleInDC]

CreoleInDC checking in. You already know how I feel about this subject. I'm Creole. That's like ethnic gumbo.