Monday, February 26, 2007

A Debt That Is Difficult To Repay


Last night I watched the PBS series, "American Experience." This two-hour episode was entitled "New Orleans" and it was a look at the history, from beginning to post-Katrina, of my second-favorite city. I am naturally drawn to anything about New Orleans as I consider it my other childhood home, having been raised nearly half my young years in this oh so unique city. I absolutely love New Orleans and of course was incredibly saddened by what happened to the city and its people during and immediately after Hurricane Katrina. My mother, sister, nieces, cousins and some friends still lived there, though they got out in the mass exodus just before the storm hit. None have gone back yet.

But actually that is not why I bring up the PBS show, though it did replay a lot of the tragedy based on racism and classicism that was at root of so much of what we all saw on television in the ugly aftermath. What was even more eye-opening in the documentary was a look at the unique history of New Orleans in terms of its "race relations." The city was, surprisingly, at one time so very far ahead of the rest of the country in terms of how the different ethnic groups intermingled. As pointed out last night, that all changed though due to to two major and yet equally impacting social realities, first the backlash against Reconstruction and then again during the days of "separate but equal." What was so powerful for me to watch, though it was not the first time I had seen such images, was how truly demoralizing this state-sanctioned and legalized bigotry should have been to a whole ethnic group. I can't even imagine what it must have been like having to live every single day being treated as less than other people - riding the back of the bus, "colored only" dining halls and balconies, sub par and separate schools, areas you cannot live.

Watching that I was truly saddened thinking about how stupid and badly people can treat other people. And I was reminded that I should not be surprised that people of color cannot be entirely blamed for harboring even a minimum belief deep in their bones, no matter how unfounded the belief since the opposite is true, that somehow they are not good enough, not worth what other people are worth. After all, racism that went as deep as what those people experienced, to the point that the government even backed it with laws cannot be just shrugged off. And obviously, based on what we saw with the overwhelmingly black victims left to die and suffer in the aftermath of Katrina, things have not gotten altogether better in this regard.

And yet I am also reminded by the images I saw last night of what a debt I owe to those incredible people of color who came before me and carried themselves with unmistakable dignity in the face of a personalized and focused evil, that I don't even know how I would have responded to. And thanks to them, I do have the choices I do, and my kids can exist and be who and what they are. Were it not for their strength and perseverance none of us, no matter what our ethnic group or groups, would be as free as we are. Black people aren't the only ones who owe a debt to all those who made it through those very very ugly days.

Friday, February 23, 2007

Not all Television So Forward Thinking

I recently wrote a post in this blog praising the fact that television programmers and writers should be applauded for the large number of sitcoms and episodic programs that show inter-ethnic couples as normal and a valid choice without making a big to-do about the skin color differences between the characters. Well I have to also point out where I recently saw two programs where unfortunately the writers succumbed to the "one-drop" rule that says if you have one drop of black blood anywhere in your heritage, no matter how far back, then you are simply black.

One show was the animated series "Family Guy." There was an episode I happened to see the other day, and I don't know if it was an old re-run or not, that featured the lead character dealing with the discovery that way back in his family tree, his great-great-great grandfather, or something like that, was black. The joke of the episode then centered on him coming to terms with his being "black." Now the writers didn't make it out that he thought black was negative or anything like that, thank goodness. He simply felt that "being black" meant hanging out with blacks or "dressing black", etc. Of course, the only real problem here being that the fact that he was only 1/16 or so black, but the episode kept alive the notion that 1/16 was enough to overwhelm all his other blood.

Another show I saw just last night, was the hilarious, "Earl" (actually I can't remember the full name of the show but I think that is it). Now ironically this show is to be praised for the fact the central couple on the comedy is an inter-ethnic, black and white, couple and little to nothing is made of this fact. Kudos to them. But last night's episode also went down the road of keeping alive the ole "one drop" rule. In this segment, we discover how the couple came together and how it came to be that they had their bi-ethnic child. Earl does not originally know his then-wife has had an affair with this other man so he, and his parents, are surprised to discover that the baby his white wife delivers is "black" as they referred to the child. Again, credit goes to the writers in that overall much wasn't made of this in a "racial" way and indeed Earl comes to accept the kid and fathers him until his wife chooses to be with the real father. (I know dysfunctional, but that is the basis of the show.) But nevertheless, once again, that "one-drop" rule made its presence known. The white wife gave birth to a "black" child as if her ethnicity was wiped out.

So steps forward and steps backward. Despite the resilience of the "one drop" rule I'd like to think that the steps forward in these cases were at least bigger than the steps still mired in muck due to not letting go of that awful blood-line baggage.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Skin Color Still Rules

We live in a society (and world it seems) where the spectrum of skin color, from dark to light, is the primary value when judging the acceptability or attractiveness of a person, or even a relationship.

We all know this to be the case when we consider that generally our society judges white as better, or more symbolic of good and positive, than black. (Remember how good guys wear white and bad guys dress in black in our images) But this notion is not just true across ethnic lines, but also makes its presence known within ethnic groups. Hispanics, like blacks, for example, place higher values on lighter skin tones than darker ones. And many of you may be familiar with Dr. Kenneth Clark's famous experiments in the 50s utilizing black and white dolls, dolls which otherwise looked exactly alike. In his experiment, as well as a highly publicized updated version of it done by a talented high school student recently, black kids overwhelmingly favored the white doll over the black one and actually attributed better attributes to that doll as well, as in the white doll was "nicer." Sad and somewhat surprising that not much has changed in that regard over nearly 50 years.

This light skin preference also impacts bi-ethnic relationships and children. In general there is less resistance to inter-ethnic relationships when the couple is closer to each other in skin tone. Remember Lucy and Ricky Ricardo didn't cause any great stir. And still today, for example, often a light-skinned Hispanic with a white will not get the looks that a dark Hispanic with a white will. The same is true for a light-black and a Mexican-American. For some reason the wider the difference in skin tone the harder it is for people.

But this light-dark skin issue even impacts the acceptance of someone identifying themselves as Mixed. For example few question Derk Jeter's bi-ethnic background or have an issue with him not identifying himself as simply Black. And yet, a Mixed person, let's say white and black, who happens to be darker in skin tone, often finds much resistance to choosing to label themselves as anything other than Black or African-American. In a way it seems as if people can accept bi-ethnic, and someone choosing that label or some other such label, as long as their skin color is not too dark.

Strange indeed.

Monday, February 19, 2007

"Black History Month" Should Go

If it were up to me we would do away with this whole "Black History Month" designation. Apparently I am not the only person, black or otherwise, who thinks this. A recent poll I read on MSN mentioned that Americans are quite divided over this month-long observance. Surprising to some, but not to me, is the fact that while the majority of blacks do support the special month, something like 65%, there are many, like me, who do not.

I have no doubt that a lot of the accomplishments blacks have made in our society would not get any attention had it not been for "Black History Month." While in the car the other day, my daughter, upon noticing a traffic light, delightfully pointed out that she learned that a black man invented the traffic signal. I was glad to hear that she had learned something like that at school. And were it not for the month-long focus, it is likely she would not have that information.

So then why am I against the 28-day focus? Because it makes it too easy for our society and our educators to forget about black contributions the other 11 months of the year. Because it puts blacks in a special case category, like we are not a part of "American" history, not just Black history. And I am also against it because the designation actually has the opposite effect than the one intended. Rather than making Blacks equal, it makes us out to be special cases, like it is so unusual for us to have achievements that we need to stop for a moment to make note, while for everyone else achievements are normal, so no need to stop the presses. I, and others I know, are often sought out or trotted out by organizations, churches, and schools during this month to come in and speak during this month, as a way of showing how open these groups are. And yet, the rest of the year, often we are ignored.

No, the best way to make this society recognize Black achievement is to make sure that we are included as an everyday part of history, because we were and are. And the same goes for all the other ethnic groups that don't get the credit they deserve for helping to make this society and our world the place that it is. This single month focus only allows us to separate Blacks from the whole and in the end, that was neither the purpose of this calendar highlight nor has it proven to make a dent in getting society to include minority achievements as a normal part of education. A 28-day focus is too easy. The greater goal is a 365-day effort, not just on Black, and certainly not just on White, but rather a broader acceptance that we could not be where we are, enjoy what we enjoy, without the contributions of a very wide spectrum of colors and ethnicities. Then, and only then, will we be able to have a pride in who we are. Because no matter how you separate me, no matter how noble the intent, you are still putting me off to the side, as if I don't belong right where everyone else is.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

"Race" Is Not Real

Today rather than reading my thoughts on this issue I'll just share with you information from other, more learned, perspectives on how useless and outdated all this focus on race is. It really speaks for itself.

From The American Heritage Dictionary:

USAGE NOTE The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populations—Caucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid—are now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. ..The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other points—such as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in another—many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.

From The Encyclopedia of Public Health:

Race and Ethnicity
Within public health, there is disagreement about the meaning and use of the term "race." Often, public health scientists and the general public alike mistakenly base their notions of race on the idea that the human species can be separated into distinct human races identifiable through differences in physical traits (e.g., skin color, hair texture, facial features). Furthermore these ideas frequently carry with them the notion that these physical or other distinguishing traits have a basis in a homogeneous set of genes that differentiate races from one another. These ideas originated in the fifteenth century when the ability to support such ideas using sound scientific methods was not possible. Now, scientists from many disciplines (e.g., genetics, anthropology, sociology, biology) agree that there are no distinct human races as was previously claimed...


Starting in the 1970s, scientific evidence began to accumulate to support the idea that races, as distinct biologically or genetically homogeneous groups of humans, do not exist. Geneticists have shown that only a very small proportion (6% or less) of human genetic variability occurs between so-called races. Furthermore scientists within other disciplines, such as biology and anthropology, have discarded such definitions of race based upon notions of biologic or genetic homogeneity. Rather, scientists recognize that the concept of race has been socially constructed—initially in the sixteenth century to justify economic exploitation and political domination of certain populations distinguishable by physical features such as skin color—and that race is a set of economic, political, and cultural relations that result in health and social inequalities.

In the face of all that, somehow people still cling to these ridiculous notions and will even fight over them. How very stupid and sad.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Don't Let Others Make Choices For You

I had an interesting conversation with my wife today about the idea of choices. In our discussion the point was made that in life, in almost every situation or problem that we come across, no matter how difficult, there is almost always a choice for us to make. We concluded that even when the alternatives available do not seem like much of choice, either because the solution is not an optimum one, or because it does not completely satisfy the issue or problem, there is still a choice. Or at least there should be. Because in the end, even if we are paralyzed by, or depressed, or unhappy with a choice, and therefore choose to do nothing, even that is still a choice. So our conclusion was it certainly makes more sense to be an active participant in the choosing process rather than being passive and letting circumstance choose for you. After all, something will be chosen, something will be the outcome of every situation.

So what, you may be asking, does this have to do with the subject of this blog. Here it is. This society, the larger one in general and the many smaller sub-societies in particular, whether they be ethnic based, religious based, neighborhood based, or any number of the other myriad ways people group, will always try to force its opinions, mores, and group-think codes of behavior onto the individual. And of course, in any society, this is not altogether bad, since standards of behavior are necessary for a functioning society. But it is also true that each and every one of us has to have the power and the ability to make choices, especially in the areas of personal desire that do no harm to oneself or anyone else. In the area of who any of us choose to date, we cannot let society or its subcultures make choices for us. The moment we do that, we have abdicated the importance of the individual to impact the larger society and help it move forward.

If we don't choose for ourselves, the society, and those who oftentimes think in much more small-minded and often fear-based ways, will certainly choose for you. And in the end, none of those people will have to live with the choice and the consequences they have foisted upon you. There is always a choice to make, whether it has to do with everyday life problems or whether it is in who you choose to date, marry, and start a family with. Be unafraid to be the one making the choice.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Trans-racial Adoption Is Better Than No Adoption

I came across an article today regarding the controversy over "trans-racial adoption" as it is called. Before going further on that subject, let me pause for a moment to comment on that term. What a bunch of overly intellectual craziness that is. "Trans-racial." Talk about making things more complicated than they need to be. Who in the world came up with this and introduced it into our lexicon? I guess if I took that word seriously and as something that was real, I too would be against such a thing. But the reality is, there is no real meaning behind the word. As soon as I hear or read someone using that word, I already know they are beyond reality and are terribly out of touch.

As to the issue behind that outrageous term, adoption across ethnic lines, the fact that there is controversy over this is simply the result of the race-conscious doing what they always do, putting way too much weight on ethnic differences. Now less you think I am ignoring all of the research and study that goes into the final verdict of these people in opposition to cross-ethnic adoption, I assure you I am not. I am also not naive enough to think that love conquers all. But what I do think is that the problems that the families, both the parents and the adopted child, will experience, don't come even close to outweighing the possibility of not being adopted at all.
Our church has several white couples who have adopted children of different ethnicities. And from what I can see, these kids and parents are full of love and the children just normal people laughing and experiencing life just like every other child.

I do not doubt that these families will be required to be especially vigilant about making sure their children are exposed to, familiar with, and comfortable with their biological heritages and their place in the world, particularly if they will look different from everyone else in the family and in the neighborhood. But all parents have to be diligent in their efforts to make sure they raise well-adjusted children. The fact that there is an added issue is not reason enough to overshadow the opportunity for a child to be in a loving home, regardless of the color or culture of the prospective parents.

Now one component of this issue, an obvious sign of the value our society places on one ethnic group, or color, above another, is that when inter-ethnic adoption does occur, rarely is is a person of dark complexion adopting a white child. More often than not it is the other way around (and the whole trend of stars adopting babies from Africa and Asia is a whole different issue). Now I don't know if there are many instances where blacks or Hispanics have tried to adopt white babies or children, but something tells me that would definitely meet with even more objections from many in society. Typically when you hear of "trans-racial adoption" it is in reference to whites wanting to adopt black children. And it is has been opposed most vehemently by black sociologist associations. But whichever way the color chart goes, to me the issue is a non-issue. Love may not conquer all, because relationships and raising a family, require a great deal of effort. But the fact that someone wants to bring a little person into their life is far more than half the battle. And I do believe that the desire to love another, across culture or within it, is all that matters in the end.

Monday, February 12, 2007

Inter-Ethnic Dating Uneventful on Television

Yesterday's Los Angeles Times had a very interesting article on the subject of "interracial dating" (their term not mine) as portrayed on television. The article noted how on most of the shows that depict such relationships, race or ethnicity, is never even spoken about. The point of the article was the question of whether the non-issue of these relationships was a good or bad thing. There were opinions of course on both sides of that question, but overall the tone seemed to be one that I totally agree with, that the more we can treat these relationships as "normal" and a regular part of the choices people should be allowed to make, the better. As hard as it is for some people to accept it, many inter-ethnic relationships are quite uneventful in terms of the role of ethnicity. And while there certainly can be issues that must be dealt with, these issues are just a part of dealing with any number of other issues that all relationships have to deal with. So I am thrilled when I see these couplings normalized on television. And I agree with the article, that more and more, inter-ethnic relationships are becoming valid choices on the small screen in particular.

In the LA Times piece, the writer, referenced Julia Louise-Dreyfus' new show "The New Adventures of Old Christine" and her relationship with a black character played by Blair Underwood. As the article noted, the differences in their skin colors never comes up. Other shows are mentioned, "House," "Lost," "The L Word," "Boston Legal," "My Name Is Earl," "Men in Trees,""Desperate Housewives" and "Heroes," all of which have inter-ethnic relationships of varying cultures. To that list, I would actually add a number of children and teenage-oriented programs, largely on channels such as The Disney Channel and Nickelodeon, which in my opinion show inter-ethnic relationships with much more frequency than even the major networks. Popular programs like "That's So Raven," "Sweet Life of Zach and Cody," as well as even movies made for these channels, like the ever so popular, "High School Musical" have many cross-ethnic relationships. And here also, when I have watched some of these shows with my kids, I have noticed that "racial issues" in these relationships are not dealt with. And that must really be scary to those who have issues with cross-cultural dating, seeing them normalized on children's programming, the very generation that will grow up to set the standards of what is and isn't accepted in years to come. Which is exactly why I support the non-issue angle.

I am a movie director and my wife a producer. We just completed a feature film, "A Simple Promise" due out later this year (http://www.asimplepromise.com/) and it also has a number of inter-ethnic couples in leading roles. And needless to say, as the movie is about family and going after your dreams, we saw no reason to make an issue out the mix of the ethnicities. As on those television shows above, the ethnic make-up and connections between the characters is not a problem for them. That it may be a problem for those on the outside looking in, is their issue, not the characters. Entertainment - movies, television, and music - does have the power to influence. Thankfully there are those who recognize that relationships across ethnic lines should be neither hidden nor made out to always be laden with ethnic complications.

Here is a link to the LA Times article:
http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-ca-race11feb11,0,163855.story?coll=cl-tv-features

Friday, February 9, 2007

Which Box To Check?


Here is an interesting example of the craziness of the whole racial labelling stupidity and how it just no longer makes sense, if it ever did. My daughter is in Girl Scouts and my wife is her troop's leader. In preparing for one of their annual events, she was presented by the group's regional leadership a form that they request each troop fills out. It is a form that Girl Scouts then passes on to the United Way, which is one of their funding organizations and is clearly used to keep track of race for some purpose that has to do with receiving money.

Well it was in a way a simple form. The troop leader is supposed to check off the "racial" breakdown of her group of girls. Here are the choices presented: White, Asian, Black, and a category called "ASHO," which was the abbreviation for "also some Hispanic origin." In many places I guess that would make sense that people could so easily fall into one of those categories. But here were our questions to the regional leader: What was my wife supposed to check off for the girl who was part Lebanese and part Kuwaiti? What about the child who was mixed with Asian and White? What was the correct choice for the child who was full Mexican in descent, since ASHO meant "ALSO of Hispanic origin" and in this child's case there is no "also." And of course she asked, what about black and Mexican, though we knew that was easier.

The leader's answers were kind of amusing, not because she said anything particularly funny, but because it so stumped her on a few of those. In a couple of cases, her initial response was simply a drawn out "uhhhhhhhh." Finally she answered that the Kuwaiti-Lebanese girl should elect white, something that we know would have been a revelation to her parents. Asian and White drew another hesitation, but finally she just relented and said for all the others to just go ahead and check multiple boxes. Which in the end was the only solution possible. To the leader's defense, she pointed out that this wasn't a Girl Scouts' form or requirement, but something they get from The United Way. But it was still interesting for us to have an opportunity to demonstrate to people that these racial boxes must go and that increasingly they are useless.
By the way, the picture accompanying this post is of our daughter's cheerleading squad. As an example of how normal mixed kids are in our area, note that of the four girls on the squad, chosen randomly, one is Black-Mexican-American, one is Asian-White-Hispanic, one is Black-White (Romanian), and the other White-White. Kind of cool I think.

Thursday, February 8, 2007

Not Another New Superiority

It occurred to me after looking back over some of my posts that I should probably write about the fact that in discussing all these issues related to mixed ethnicity people it could come across as if I were espousing the belief that mixed is better for everyone. Or that everyone should be in a bi-ethnic relationship. Let me go on record right now. That is certainly not what I am saying and is not the purpose of this blog. I am all for choice. Every person has to decide what works for them. Love comes in many forms and configurations. And I applaud a positive relationship whenever and wherever someone can find it. My ongoing point, and wish, is that people should also accept that everyone should have the right to pick a partner or spouse out of whichever ethnic group they choose, as long as they are happy. And consequently, people should accept that the children who come out of those relationships are not to be looked upon as oddities or children who are destined to have social isolation problems.

Those are the dual sides of this "interracial" dating coin. There are those who believe that anyone they see who is with someone outside of their own ethnic group is somehow a "self-hater" of his or her own ethnicity. I was checking out some other sites on this issue the other day and came across a blog of an African-American young woman who had extreme issues with black men who date "outside their race" as she put it. She felt it was an affront to every black woman and that simply by doing it, black men were somehow making a conscious decision to spit in the face of black women. That was not the first time I have heard how touchy this issue is for many black women. And I am also sure that it can be touchy for any group - Hispanic, Asian, Anglo, whatever. And I do know that there are some men out there who do make a conscious choice that they think a certain ethnicity is better, so they will only date those women.

But it is such a long stretch to apply that generalization to EVERY man or person who walks down the street with someone of a different ethnicity. Generalization is easy, which is why it is the root of bigotry. What makes more sense is to accept that it is also possible that two people have simply found an attraction and a connection, not because of skin color, but in spite of it. And that IS something to applaud because what I see when I see these couples, are two people who cared more for each other than they did about what others preferred to dictate. So their relationship shouldn't get more points than one not crossing ethnic lines but it certainly shouldn't be stereotyped either. I agree that people who target one ethnicity simply because they have a preference for that group, are thinking along racial lines. And that is not what I would hope for, whether they are Mexican saying they only want to date White or whether they are Asian saying they ONLY date Asian. Both decisions are rooted in being closed minded. When people can choose who they want without regard to ethnic make-up, we are truly free.

The other side of that racial coin I mentioned relates to the kids. Again, I am not putting mixed kids on a pedestal. All I want to get across is that these kids, rather than be stared at as oddities or shown false concern out of a belief that somehow they will be social misfits, are living breathing symbols of how we can indeed get along. All children are special and beautiful and gifts to humanity. One ethnicity is not better than another and mixed does not make them a superior new ethnicity. All I am hoping for, by the way I raise my kids, and by the way I try to make this world a better, less polarized place, is that all of these mixed kids can be free to be ALL that they are. And the way that an Italian-Russian person can proudly proclaim their heritage, we get to the point where a Black Jamaican- Italian American kid can do the same. I want no more and no less.

Wednesday, February 7, 2007

Largest Minority is Mixed Ethnic People

I read today that in Britain mixed ethnic people are poised to become the largest minority in that country. I would not be surprised if that were not the case here as well. I think the numbers of people identifying themselves as having mixed ethnic and "racial" heritage would increase dramatically if people felt more comfortable and absent the pressure of "pure race" politics and the racial police who want to force everyone to identify in single neat categories. Indeed that is part of the problem with identity politics. It is as much about politics as it is about anything else. Minority politicians and organizations have a vested stake in keeping the numbers of their constituents high. For every person choosing to identify as mixed or some other more accurate label, that is one less person racial leaders can claim that they speak for. This is true for black organizations as well as Latino ones, Asian ones, or whatever the minority group is. And believe me, I understand that much is at stake in these numbers. Voting districts, school enrollments, subsidies, contracts, political clout, they are all at stake when counting numbers. Well, that is too bad. Maybe we just need to find some other ways to coalesce. Or maybe these groups will just have to accept that soon there might be another caucus in Congress with a lot more clout. One representing mixed-ethnic Americans. Ready or not, times are indeed changing.

Here is the article:

From The Sunday Times (London)
January 21, 2007


Mixed-race Britons to become biggest minority
Jack Grimston


MIXED-RACE Britons are poised to overtake Indians to become the country’s largest ethnic minority within 25 years, the government’s new rights watchdog has forecast.
Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, said the mixed-race group was seeing an “astonishing rise” and would reach 1.24m by 2020.
But while cross-racial marriages are becoming increasingly widespread and accepted, Phillips has warned that the children of such couples may face a new set of racial problems. He points to the risk of a generation falling victim to “identity stripping”, or being unsure which community they belong to.


Phillips, whose previously unpublicised comments were made in a recent speech, said the expansion in mixed-race Britons “is not an uncomplicated prospect. The mixed-race Britons are young and they show the highest employment rates of any minority group.
“But they also exhibit the highest rates of lone parenthood and family breakdown, in some cases three times the average. They suffer the highest rates of drug treatment . . . Many people talk of identity stripping — children who grow up marooned between communities”.
The warnings have provoked criticism from some who believe they are unnecessarily pessimistic. Val Hoskins, a trustee of the mixed-race support group People in Harmony, said: “The reason my group was started was in response to people like Enoch Powell saying mixed-race people were a cause of conflict, not being one or the other.


“Mixed-race people do not see themselves as marooned. It is other people who see them as not belonging.”

Oona King, the former Labour MP who is the daughter of a Geordie Jewish mother and a black American father, acknowledged there were problems coming from a mixed-race family, but said these were easily outweighed by the advantages.

“When I was small, my white family said if I got lost I should ask a nice policeman, but my black family told me that if I saw a policeman I should run away,” said King.

She added: “When black people tell me I’m not black and white people tell me I’m not white, I suppose there is something stripped, but I am grateful for being mixed race. It gives me a chameleon-like ability to fit into different situations and cultures.”

Mixed-race Britons — who before the 1991 census were described officially as “other” or as members of another ethnic group — numbered 674,000 in the 2001 count.

According to the Office for National Statistics, the largest group within the mixed-race category in 2001 was Afro-Caribbean-white, with 237,000 people, followed by Asian-white at 189,000.
Phillips’s forecasts, based partly on research by Professor Phil Rees of Leeds University, suggest the mixed-race group is growing at a rate of 4.9% a year. This will enable the category to outstrip Indians, who currently number about 1.1m, by the end of the 2020s. Only a few groups, such as black Africans, are growing faster. Meanwhile, the white British population is shrinking by about 100,000 every three years.


As global migration has accelerated, interracial relationships have become increasingly widespread and people with mixed race can point to role models such as Zadie Smith, the novelist, and Halle Berry, the Hollywood actress.

But many mixed-race Britons believe it has only recently become easier for them to assert their identity rather than having to declare themselves as belonging to an established group.
“Some communities, particularly the ethnic and black rights groups, have tried to bulldoze mixed-race people into a black identity,” said Madeleine Cham-pagnie, 37, an Iranian-Italian teacher who was born in Britain.


Her husband Simon, 37, is mixed French-Jamaican-Indian but, she added, “identifies himself as black British”. The couple have two small children. “I will be interested to see how they identify themselves when they grow up,” she said.

Tuesday, February 6, 2007

Mixed Race People Better Looking?

I have actually heard people, of all ethnicities, refer to mixed children and people as being on average better looking than other people. Frankly I have seen gorgeous people of all ethnicities so I can't really say if I think mixed people are better looking overall. But I do understand where the notion comes from and generally would agree that it does seem like more times than not mixed ethnicity people are quite attractive. But I don't know if that can be proved. At least I didn't think so.

But last year along came the book, "Breeding Between The Lines: Why Interracial People are Healthier and More Attractive." The book was written by Alon Ziv, who by the way is not mixed. Mr. Ziv was a successful biology teacher at UCLA before becoming a travelling lecturer on issues relating to bi-ethnic people. His book, as the title would indicate, focuses on his research which he believes proves that "interracial" people are indeed better - stronger, fitter, healthier, and more attractive than people who are of one "race" or ethnicity. Here is an excerpt from an essay on his website (www.breedingbetweenthelines.com) in which he starts by referencing the recent 'Survivor' television show's initial gimmick of separating the tribes by ethnicity:

"...By separating the races into different tribes, 'Survivor' is perpetuating an old myth: that one race is "the best." This myth has been the source of everything from barroom arguments to full-scale genocides. But it overlooks a fundamental point: each race contains only part of our species' genetic diversity. The real power of that diversity is unlocked by bringing it together, not by keeping it segregated.

Bringing that diversity together is something Americans are doing more and more. Interracial marriage was illegal in sixteen states until 1967 when the Supreme Court stepped in. Since then Americans have been marrying outside their race with increasing frequency. The current generation of Americans has more than twice as many interracial members as the previous one. But what tribe do they join?

'Survivor' seems to be stuck in the 19th Century view that there are four races and they never mix. Which is pretty silly. Especially since if I were trapped on a deserted island, I'd want some interracial people on my tribe. The increased genetic variation of mixed race individuals means on average they are stronger, healthier, and better-looking. Which means they are more likely to "survive."

The always sensitive Rush Limbaugh predicts that the Asian-American tribe (or "brainiacs" as he refers to them) will "outsmart everyone." Only time will tell if Rush is right, but the real question is could they outsmart my mixed-race tribe? In my new book, I describe a study on the genetics of intelligence in which the mixed-race group easily outscored both the white group and the Asian group.

And what about the physical challenges? Not every interracial person is a Derek Jeter or Hines Ward, but while researching my book I discovered significant evidence that mixed-race people are taller, stronger, and more athletic. Once again, my interracial tribe is looking pretty good.
Speaking of looking good, multiple studies have found that interracial people are more attractive. There is even some evidence that mixed-race men are more likely to satisfy women in bed..."


Interesting. I haven't read the book yet, though I have seen the author being interviewed on several television news programs. I do intend to read what he has to say. The root of his theory is something called hybrid vigor. The point being that the closer genetically a person's parents are the more likely to develop problems and conversely, by bringing together diverse genes, you are creating a better opportunity that the best genes of both sides will more likely come into play. You know what, that does make sense to me.

I am not sure it can indeed be proved that mixed people are better off, but it would be interesting if those of the "pure race" school had it completely wrong and that the opposite were actually true, that mixing of ethnicities was really the key to building a stronger genetic pool.

Monday, February 5, 2007

Best Places For Mixed Familes

I have had the pleasure of living in a number of different regions in this country. I was born in the South and grew up for the most part in Southeast Texas and Louisiana. But since college have had the chance to live for periods of time in Austin and Dallas, Texas, New York City, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., St. Louis and now Los Angeles. Additionally I have travelled to many other cities large and small, though only domestically at this time. Having lived in so many places I have been afforded the opportunity to witness personally how common and uncommon mixed ethnicity and bi-cultural relationships are in those areas. Luckily I have seen such pairings in every place I have been, but it has certainly been my experience that some places are definitely more accepting than others. And these comments are not based on real data but meant to reflect what we have experienced in terms of attitudes and acceptance.

Most people are going to assume that the South would be the worst in terms of acceptance of such alliances and that there would be far fewer mixed ethnic kids there than anywhere. And frankly, that does seem to fit with much of what I have seen. But strangely the city that seemed the worst of any place I have ever been or lived, in terms of the numbers of such couples and children and in the almost blatant disdain for it, was St. Louis. That may have a lot to do with the fact that St. Louis is a very black and white city, as opposed to having the large numbers of other cultures that exist in many other big cities, like East Coast and West Coast cities. But then again, that is also true of many Southern cities, so to be honest I am not sure why it is the case that St. Louis was the worst for us in that regard. But hands down, my wife and I experienced far more stares and comments there than anywhere we have been. Which does not mean we hated St. Louis or that it was a hostile place. I am just noting that on the mixed dating front, it was the worst.

New York City is obviously a close close second best for the acceptance of mixed couples and children. I remember when I moved there, how refreshing it was to see the particularly large and completely common sight of black Hispanics, whether they were Puerto Rican, Dominican, Cuban, Brazilian, or black American mixed with any of those. And of course the Asian mixtures and Anglo mixtures. Everything. And in New York, as the stereotype goes, everyone was too busy to seem to notice or care what anyone else was doing. It was a welcome site for this native Texan. Texas is getting better on this front, but for the most part, even in its most liberal city, Austin, we can't say that seeing mixed couples and children is a very common sight. And stepping out of that liberal oasis in Texas definitely still puts mixed families in a very lonely club.

But the top of the list for me, hands down has to be Los Angeles, though again, New York City is thisclose in second place. Indeed my wife and I actually picked Los Angeles because it was important for us to find a city where our kids could grow up and not feel like they were anomalies. And for the most part we knew that meant New York City or Los Angeles since we wanted to live in a big metropolitan area for our careers. I have certainly heard that Minneapolis-St. Paul, Seattle and Miami are also great cities for seeing this future world already in place. And that is not to say there aren't smaller communities in other cities. But for us Los Angeles has been exactly what we ordered. I have read where Los Angeles has more cultures and ethnic groups than any city in America, including New York. And we see it everyday. And of course that does not mean they always get along. But such is life in the big city. But they do get along for the most part because we are always amazed at how many mixed ethnic kids we see here daily. So much so that quite honestly we don't really even notice it that much. Our kids regularly play with kids who are Asian-Anglo, Black-White, Black-Mexican, Mexican-White, Asian-Black, and the list goes on. That's not counting all the people from all over the world they daily interact with. It is truly uplifting to watch them and think about what Martin Luther King, Jr. said about his dream of kids of all colors playing together. Well, these kids are not just playing together here and in other places too, but they ARE together, mixed into one. That is a step beyond the dream.

Saturday, February 3, 2007

The Label Game

Barack Obama. Ignoring the politics and whether he deserves to be President or not, as frankly I haven't looked into his politics enough yet, but here's the question. If elected will he be the first black President? (Well some people consider Bill Clinton to be the first black President, but that's a different discussion) The answer of course depends on if you consider him black. Without a doubt it would be accurate to label him (if you must) as African-American since his father is indeed from Africa and his mother is white American. But then again, a white friend of mine from South Africa who is now American is also African-American. But nevertheless we can certainly say Obama would make history as the first to be such a mixture. Which technically means he would be the nation's first "bi-racial" or mixed President. So win or lose it is refreshing to see someone representing the "new" America being at that level. By the way, I have not read or heard how Obama labels himself. But I am all for mixed people having the right to self-identify.

I bring up Obama mainly because he is so very much an example of the problem of labeling. Obama, who is most often referred to as black or African-American is interestingly culturally very different from most blacks, at least in how he was raised. He was largely raised by his white grandparents in Hawaii and in an Eastern Country. So his cultural experiences growing up were not what you would call "black." I love that he brings all of those experiences to the table in terms of his ethnic and cultural view of the world and his make-up. And I love that he will force the whole labelling thing to the forefront.

Of course we have had other prominent mixed people in the spotlight - Halle Berry, Derek Jeter, Mariah Carey, Rosario Dawson, Tiger Woods, Lenny Kravitz, Alicia Keyes, Jessica Alba, Amerie, Rae Dawn Chong, Corbin Bleu, Christina Aguilera, Thandie Newton, Michael Jackson (wait a minute, that's not right), and the list goes on and on. But most of those are entertainers and athletes. A President is something different. But in all those cases ultimately these people, whether they identify themselves as black or white or mixed or Hispanic or whatever, they challenge our labels. It is the labels themselves that we need to challenge. Again, is it OK to call a white person from Africa, African-American? What about a black person originally from England? What do you label a kid whose parents are Mexican-American and White? Salvadoran and black? For that matter what in the world does it mean to be "white" considering the oh so many ethnic differences amongst Anglo-Americans. It is all so confusing and yet there are so many who would prefer to make it come down to just three "races". Well it is not that simple. And yet it can be very simple if we would just accept that what separates us is simply a matter of nothing more than culture and ethnic differences developed over many many years. But those differences are not rooted in stone and there is no racial line to cross. So I say do your thing Barack and whether I vote for him or not, I am oh so glad he is in the forefront of the media these days.

Friday, February 2, 2007

The Genesis


Starting this is kind of hard. Not because I don't know what to say. Actually it's because I have so very much to say that I don't know for sure where to start. So why don't I start with the personal motivation behind this blog.

I am married to a Mexican-American woman and we have two beautiful children, a 9 year old son and an 8 year old daughter. By the way, I am a black American, or African-American if you prefer. So our children are, depending on how you view the world, black, Hispanic, mixed, black-Hispanic, black-Mexican, bi-racial, multi-ethnic, mulatto, or any number of other interesting terms our society has come up with to put a label on who they are. It truly is funny in some ways how important it is for people to have a label they can hang onto when defining people. And yet in many many other ways it is not funny at all.

Which is the point of this blog and this particular posting. While putting a label on our, and other children whose parents are of different ethnic groups, is important to others for reasons that are political, racist, ego driven and just to make things easier for some, it is not important to me and my wife. What IS important to us is that our kids be proud of who they are and what they represent. Which is both sides of their heritage - both all that it means to be black and of African descent AND all that it means to be Hispanic and of Mexican descent. And of course all that it means to be American and all that that means as well. Though this sounds simple enough, and logical, it is amazing how many people do not see things this way.

Most of us are familiar with the "one drop rule" that says if you have even one drop of black blood in your veins, no matter how far back you have to go to find that drop, then you are black, end of discussion. What amazes me about this notion and the fact that it is still widely accepted today, even by black people, is that most proponents of this idea have no idea how racist the notion is and that it is rooted in the idea of a pure white "race." It is based on the notion that one drop of black is so pervasive and tainting that it overrules everything else. How stupid and silly. And worse, that black people back the idea is even more crazy. But I bring it up to say that my wife and I aren't crazy. We understand that with such idiocy as the root of our notions of "race" our children will be pushed simply to identify and be identified by most who carry this outdated notion, as being black. As if half of their genetic pool does not exist. It reminds me of something I read the other day that sums up the idiocy best. The phrase was something like "in this country, a white woman can give birth to a black child but a black woman cannot give birth to a white child." Does that not bring home how crazy this is?

And I need to make sure something is very clear, the point here is not that I am not proud of being black because believe me I love my culture and what we have brought to the world and I will make sure my kids are proud of that as well. But I believe that racism is stupid. And I believe that if we are ever going to rid ourselves of that stupidity, we will not do it with laws and whatnot, we will do it by blowing up the notion of race. Race is just a convenient way to label people. There is only one race with many different cultures and ethnic groups. My goal is that we get past these labels. And it starts with these kids. Interracial is a misnomer since its root is race, I prefer mixed or bi-ethnic if not the more accurate black-Hispanic in the case of our kids. In the end none of those labels matter anyway, except to be able to identify. In the end, ours kids and the thousands that are out there, are just people. Gloriously though, they are people who just may help destroy our notions of race.