"Obama rejected the race and ethnicity of his loving white mother and grandparents in favor of "blackness" and is lionized for it. Hispanics and Arabs were willing to go to court to demand that they be called "white" regardless of looks and ancestry. Liberal whites who whine about racism will not stand up to the blacks (like Henry Louis Gates, Jr.) who demonize the late Anatole Broyard for "passing" for a white race that was his biological and cultural reality. Blacks have no right to claim anyone who "looks white" or otherwise nonblack for their "race." That is a "right" they claim which no one should respect."
- A.D. Powell
In "What is a Mixed White Person?" I explained the concept of mixed Whiteness and the logic supporting it. Now, I would like to present the mythology that inculcates and reinforces the "White Purity" doctrine. Recall that this ideology defines White persons as those who are fully European. The tacit understanding is that only pure caucasians (or those who look pure) are good enough for their White heritage. There are is one major myth with three forms, and two associated minor myths, which instruct and enforce this doctrine. The major notion, is that mixed people are genetic frauds who are too inferior for their White heritage. The first supporting notion, is that mixed people must choose a Black identity (or non-White identity), because the White community will reject them. The second supporting notion, is that mixed people must choose a Black identity (or non-White identity), because they owe Blacks their loyalty.
This mythology is disseminated through magazines, newspapers, television shows, movies, books, parental instruction, educational institutions, interpersonal contacts, and so on. Children learn that as adults, society expects them to respect and enforce these beliefs. To accomplish this, society teaches them rhetorical devices to employ against those who defy the dogma. These assume the form of pre-packaged accusations which an "enforcer" uses to demand compliance with one or several of the purity myths. In some cases the myth is communicated implicitly because it conflicts with the official ideals of our society. Other times, the myth is explicated directly. In all instances, the goal of the accuser is to coerce, terrorize, or shame the accused into respecting the purity mythology.
1. The "Genetic Fraud" Myth:
"Mixed people are not good enough for their White heritage, because they lack the superior racial qualities of genuine Whites."This belief takes on three specific forms:
A. The offspring between a caucasian and a negro looks more like the negro parent, and the black ancestry is obvious after generations of mixing with Whites.
There are four implications here. The first, is that physical characteristics are indicative of other "racial" qualities, such as behavior, mental ability, and culture. The second, is that mixed people are genetically inferior because their racial traits are more like the inferior Blacks than Whites. The third, is that mixed people are genetically incapable of reproducing the White race, and therefore inadmissible as members of the White community. The fourth, is that mixed people are "racial aliens" to whom the White community has no familial and social responsibility.
The diagram below is a computer generation of the typological face for a person of each of several ancestry combinations between Black and White. In this case, the Black face is from the United States and isn't representative of pure negroes. Look at the diagram and for each generation, notice the shape of the nose, the color of the hair and eyes, the shape of the lips, the structure of the face, the extension of the cheeks, and the distance between the eyes and shape of the orbits.
Eye color is a particularly important trait because people consider it a major indicator of Caucasian ancestry. Here is an example of the distribution of brown irises in the southern Europeans (Spanish). Each brown European iris is matched with a biracial Brown eye. As you can see there is considerable overlap. The reason why is that eye color is a quantitative trait so multiple genes contribute to a person's phenotype. American Whites are of mostly northern European ancestry and typically have light blue, blue, and blue-green eyes. Alternatively, American Negroes normally have eyes that are in the upper area of the West African range due to the 20% frequency of blue alleles (gene version) from centuries of caucasian admixture. These gene frequencies produce mixed race offspring with slightly more blue alleles than dark brown, both of which are expressed to some degree, giving an appearance in the dark European range, as occurs in Southern Europe.
Next, look at this composite of negro-cauacasian hybrids, negroes from Africa, and caucasians. Note the distinctions in racial phenotype. Color eyes from brown to blue, skin tone from brown to white, thin and medium lips, curly or semi-curly (as opposed to woolly) hair, a protruding nose of moderate or thin width, a rectangular face, unpronounced cheek bones, are all caucasoid or caucasoid derived racial traits. Most are absent in pure negro populations. Now, as you can see, the mixed-race faces span a range of phenotypes between negro and caucasian. Use the perfect averages in the previous slide to evaluate these faces. In the general population, most mixed-race people fall into a range from the midpoint of the "mixed spectrum", to several faces towards the caucasian pole. This exactly matches their genotypic ancestry, which is approximately 60% caucasian and 40% negro. The near perfect correlation between anthropometry and racial admixture has also been confirmed by scientific studies. Clearly, negro physical traits are neither dominant nor prevailing.
Lastly, take a look at these slides of celebrity families with quadroon children. These results are typical. Given their approximately 20% negro ancestry, most children of biracial-caucasian crosses are phenotypically caucasian, and often demonstrate no visible black ancestry. The mythological belief in the "uncleansible" negro taint, is clearly false. A first generation back-crossing into the parental White population produces racially White children.
B. The offspring between a caucasian and a negro has just as much Black blood, as White blood.
The first implication is that cultural and behavioral traits, and hence group membership, are determined primarily by racial origin. Since Biracials are just as Black as they are White, and since negro blood is ostensibly inferior, they are really closer to the negro parent. Also, aside from the presumption of dysgenic breeding, the degree of negro or caucasian ancestry has an important impact on the heritage of an individual. Thus, the myth blackens Biracials by reducing their European ancestry to the greatest degree possible.
It is interesting how many people point out the racial impurity of Black Americans as an attack against mixed people, and in the same instance, forget what that implies for inter-group breeding. Well, you can't have your chocolate cake and eat it too. Bryc et al. (2010), studied the genetic origins of African Americans, European Americans, and West Africans. The researchers found that fewer than 2% of "Blacks" are genetically caucasoid, fewer than 6% are at least half European, and that 70% are negroid. Since Blacks are approximately 18% caucasian in racial origin, their offspring with Whites are at least 59% European. As it turns out, this estimation is too low because the Black (identified) parents of biracials are predominately middle-class, and class structure correlates with genetic admixture in Blacks (I estimate that intermarried Blacks are ~25% caucasian).
C. The mental and behavioral qualities of mixed people are superior to negroes, but inferior to caucasians.
I am working on this section as I have time
1. Intelligence Testing
A. Educational Attainment
1. Mathematicians.
2. Physicists.
3. Government Officials.
4. Military Commanders.
"Until the mid 1980s, Charles Bell, David Blackwell, A. T. Bharucha-Reid, and J. Ernest Wilkins had published more mathematics than the entire rest of the entire African American community."
- Scott Williams,http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/madgreatest.html.
The "Rejection" Myth:
"Mixed people must accept a Black (or Biracial) identity, because the White community will reject them."This myth subordinates White heritage to social designation, in order to delegitimate it. The idea is that if people do not perceive you as "White", then it doesn't matter what you technically are. By de facto, you become ethnically "Black" or "Biracial", and therefore you have no choice but to accept this designation against your will. There are four problems with this belief.
The first problem, is that ethnic identity is rooted in early childhood experiences and after the age of four it is immutable. It is impossible to change your identity to "Black" or "Biracial" even if you wanted to. This is the reason so many biracials are "confused". Society pressures them to "choose" an identity which conflicts with their automatic self-perception, and unsurprisingly, they end up very unhappy and unable to fully accept it.
The second problem, is that ethnic heritage is a biological property which cannot be negated by social convention. This is true because both culture and racial ancestry are physical characteristics. This is obvious in the case of lineage, but less clear in the case of behavior. However, cultural norms are ingrained patterns of thought and behavior which do not change after early childhood. These mental processes (which are controlled by neural circuits in the brain) become permanent schemas that are just as much a part of us as our bodies. This is the reason immigrants have such trouble adjusting to new societies and never fully assimilate. You can learn new ways of thinking and acting, but you will never fully adopt them and you will never erase your childhood culture.
The third problem, is that it isn't true that "pure" Whites will not accept biracials. This is a lie which Negroes and guilt-ridden White liberals promulgate, in order to prevent mixed Whites from asserting a White identity. To begin with, the farce is lacking in theoretical validity. The historical imputus for hypodescent (the custom of assigning biracials to the Negro caste), was to maintain a large degree of social distance between Whites and Blacks. This was necessary because Whites endorsed a doctrine of White Supremacy, which dictated that the White race must reign supreme over all others, or even eliminate them all together. Because race-mixing brings Whites and Blacks closer together (at least marginally), it was a threat to the White Supremacy Doctrine. Thus, Whites involuntarily assigned biracials to the Negro caste to maintain their social hegemony. However, after World War II, the academic establishment turned against White Supremacy as a reaction to the atrocities of the Nazi regime. The 1960's era civil rights movement capitalized on this thinking, and with the help of the academe, managed to convince White America to abandon White Supremacy. The point is, that without the doctrine of White Supremacy, Whites no longer need hypodescent because they are not committed to maintaining a massive social distance with Blacks (such as outright domination requires). So far I have spoken of theory, however the proof of this is two-fold. Firstly, intermarriage rates have sky-rocketed higher than ever before. Anthropologists use intermarriage as the meter stick of ethnicity, and more importantly for our purposes, social distance. If Whites were interested in maintaining extreme social distance with Blacks, this would not occur. A number of nationally representative studies on White attitudes have found that 70 - 75% either have positive or neutral attitudes towards intermarriage with Blacks. Furthermore, if the hypothetical Blacks in question reflected those that intermarry (predominately middle class and educated), I suspect the acceptance rate would be much higher. Secondly, I have found that in real life, Whites are not interested in rejecting me despite my mixed-race features. Quite to the contrary, in several experiments I found it easy to convince them that biracials can be White (see "Do Whites Accept US?"). If "pure" Whites categorically rejected mixed people, this would not be the case.
The fourth problem, is that a "Black" or "Biracial" social designation is a degradation for mixed White persons. Notice that a Japanese who is not accepted by other Japanese, is still "Japanese". I personally know such a girl, and no one asks her to adopt a different identity simply because she is half Korean. A Negro who is rejected by other Negroes (say for acting too White), is not expected to identify differently. The point is, even if others in your ethnic group reject you, few people will challenge your legitimate right to that identity. That is, unless you are mixed race and identify as White. The reason is simple: you aren't good enough for your White heritage, and so you ought to adopt a socially inferior identity which suits your biological inferiority. There is absolutely no other reason to accept a non-White social designation. If Whites really don't accept biracials, there is always the option of spending time with other groups of people. It has no bearing on our heritage whatever Whites think. Redefining yourself as "Biracial" or "Black", and associating with people who reject your true White identity, is not only insulting, but counter-logical to the goal of associating with those who DO accept you for what you are. A cliche slogan is in order here:
"I would rather be hated for what I am, then loved for what I am not."
3. The "Sell out" Myth:
"Mixed people must accept a Black (or non-White) identity, because they owe their loyalty to Blacks."This is perhaps the most insidious belief associated with the White Purity doctrine, because it masquerades as anti-racism while actually enforcing the tenants of White Supremacy. The subtext of the myth contains several hidden messages. Firstly, it implies that mixed people are associated with Blacks in some intrinsic sense, rather than with Whites. Second, it implies that Blacks have selflessly assisted, adored, and defended mixed people, for which they cannot be abandoned. Thirdly, it implies that whatever the relationship between mixed people and Negroes, the interest of the latter have primacy. All three of these implications are fallacious.
To begin with, mixed people are not particularly associated with Negroes and never have been, with the exception of the period from 1930 - 1980. During that time, mixed Whites amalgamated with the Negro community as an upper class, the so called "Mulatto Elite". However, this association was temporary. The resurgence of biracial identity (and now White identity) is proof of that. The only ethnic affiliation that mixed people have (on the whole), is to Whites. This is true not only because of their social interactions, but also because of the gigantic similarities between American Negroes and Whites (for instance, Negro culture is really poor southern White culture, Jazz is a variant of European tonal dances, etc). In reality, the only thing that prevents Negroes from being White persons, is that they lack a strong European descent.
Moving on, Negroes have never "selflessly assisted, adored, and defended" mixed people, and they deserve absolutely no credit for the way they have treated us.
Firstly, Negroes supported the custom of hypodescent since it's inception. For example, when the One Drop Rule arose in 1830's Ohio, the Negro community rather than the White community, fervently advocated the new custom because they recognized it as an opportunity to get as much White blood into their "race" as possible. If this wasn't the quintessential insult and degradation to mixed Whites, then the moon really is made of cheese.
Secondly, Negroes periodically supported segregation in both the North and the South, as a means of strengthening their "African" identity. This was an injury to mixed Whites, who historically sought integration with the White community.
Third, Negroes have always regarded mixed Whites with an air of hatred, jealousy, spite, and suspicion. Contrary to the Negro propaganda, even mixed people who ardently identify as Black, routinely found mistreatment at the hands of their Negro compatriots. Sociological research confirms that the problem still exists.
Fourth, Negroes did their best to destroy the validity of the mixed Whiteness (and biracial identity too), during the Black Power mania of the 1960's and 1970's. Ostensibly this was to instill themselves with racial pride and "unity", but in reality it was meant to trap anyone with White blood in the Black caste as a means of social improvement (eugenics). Most of the propaganda that modern Negroes and White liberals regurgitate, was invented during this period.
Fifth, Negroes never hesitated to use verbal coercion, intimidation, and physical violence, to corral mixed Whites into identifying as Black (or even as Biracial). People approaching me and asking "Nigga, what are your colors?", come readily to mind. Most mixed people have similar stories, and in the 1970's it was far worse.
Sixth, Negroes continue to spew out vicious propaganda against mixed people, and with the aide of guilt-ridden liberal Whites (especially those in interracial marriages), brainwash Americans into thinking that only pure (or pure looking) caucasians are legitimate White persons. As the moral compass of the country, Negroes are in a unique position to influence how everyone (particularly Whites) think, and they abuse this power to their own benefit. For instance, the NAACP was the chief opponent of the multiracial movement in the effort to expand the racial categories on the 2000 census. It abused its reputation and authority to the injury of mixed race Americans, simply because Negroes feared the loss of "precious" White blood.
Seventh, whatever Negroes have done to combat White Supremacy was for their sole benefit, not that of mixed people. They do not care about solving our problem (which is integration into the White community as full members), only about solving theirs. In Loving vs. Virginia (1967), the landmark case that legalized intermarriage in all states, Loving's lawyers argued against miscegenation, but for freedom of choice. They reasoned that society ought to perceive Negroes as equals that can, if they choose, have sex with Whites (meaning White women), without any stigma attached. They were concerned with the perception of Negroes as racial equals, not with the social legitimacy of interracial offspring. Negroes have never cared about our existence, except as a eugenic tool to Whiten their own race. While desiring sex with White women (and mixed White women), they simultaneously preached against interracial marriages, and they STILL DO to this day. Furthermore, Negroes fought against segregation for their own benefit, not ours. They never intended it to be an opportunity for mixed Whites to officially amalgamate with the White community. Had they perceived this threat, it's possible they may have accepted Jim Crow. That Negroes rabidly demand racial obedience from mixed people, while officially preaching civil rights, demonstrates that their aims are self-serving.
Third and lastly, the interests of Negroes do not come before those of mixed people. The premise of American democracy is "majority rule, minority rights". Its purpose is to ensure social justice. For this reason, it is a preposterous idea that Negroes, simply because they are a greater proportion of the country, have first rights to setting the rules of the American racial landscape in their favor. It is unconscionable that mixed people are the pawns of the academe, the liberal White establishment, and the Negro community, which hurt them in an effort to elevate the status of Black Americans. No, the interests of Negroes do not come before those of anyone else, period.
