Wednesday 11 November 2009

Miscegenation - to mix or not to mix, why is it still a question?

The language used towards mixed race people throughout history.
by Rhea Babla

Excuse me
standing on one leg
I’m half-caste.
John Agard – Half Caste (extract)

Over the centuries, the question as to whether people of different races should marry and bear children has long been unanswered. Even today, in the 21st Century, people cannot agree on whether it is an acceptable or wise decision. However, whilst there is no universal agreement, there has been a rise in multicultural societies and mixed race families. They symbolise hope for a world without prejudice – but is this a reality or just a dream?

Since this is such a huge topic, and (sadly) there are so many examples of different forms of racism today and throughout history, I have chosen to concentrate on three key areas; a historical example – mixed race people in an era of slavery (particularly concentrating in America); a modern example – Barack Obama; the future – a personal account and how the attitude towards mixed race people will affect me and my (potential) children.

From an article written in 1899, written by the ‘coal black negro of unmixed blood’, Rev. J. C. Collins. Quite often, when we read historical accounts during the era when slavery was predominant in North America, we expect them to be written by rich, white folk against Negroes. However, interestingly, this article written by a black man speaks against miscegenation also.

At this time interracial marriage was against the law. Therefore, mixed race children were ‘doomed from berth’. Collins rightly observed that ‘the law forbidding the intermarriage of the races renders every child so born illegitimate… the child must go through the world with the brand upon its brow’. That brand he spoke of included his skin colour; an unchangeable trait which stated ‘I am a bastard’.

Collins speaks against miscegenation mainly because of this, and partly because mixed race slaves were given better tasks than darker pure bloods. To Collins, this seems advantageous but the dilemma of the mixed race person was that he/she was favoured by nobody- to white men, they were slaves, and to black men, they were the reason that the black-skinned negro was ‘put off to more menial labours, which require nothing but sinew and muscle.’

The language that is used in this article was probably not written to offend or encourage racism due to hate, because Collins is mainly observing what is actually happening, but his stance against miscegenation influences the language in his argument.

Mixed race children were referred to as ‘mulattoes’ – the product of mixed white and coloured blood. This word was derived from the Portuguese and Spanish word mulato, which is derived from mula, or mule – the hybrid offspring of a horse and donkey. Clearly this term was derogatory.

Phrases such as ‘dreaded amalgamation’ would not have served to help mixed race children be encouraged and this article fails to recognise that they are people just as well. Whilst Collins passionate view against illegitimacy may be admirable, he forgets that the children themselves need love and affection as much as any other child.

Today, it seems that the attitudes towards mixed race people have changed dramatically – America celebrate the inauguration of their first mixed race president, Barack Obama. Interestingly, however, in most headlines he is noted as America’s first black president. It seems that a trace of the ‘one drop rule’ that Booker T. Washington observed in the 19th Century is still evident now.

It is a fact that, if a person is known to have one percent of African blood in his veins, he ceases to be a white man. The ninety-nine percent of Caucasian blood does not weigh by the side of the one percent of African blood. The white blood counts for nothing. The person is a Negro every time.

However, I do think that the view of him being the first black president was not supposed to be degrading his white heritage. He has both African American and Caucasian heritage.

But in most cases, he is either referred to as half-white, or half-black. Although these terms may not always be used in a derogatory way, this language has caused discussion as to what is ‘politically correct’. Firstly, to be simplified to a colour seems to be too basic; this is merely the average colour of a person’s skin and not a description of anything else (and may I note, Barack Obama would then be coffee coloured). If one wants to speak culture, they’d have to do more than look at a picture.

The use of halves also proves difficult - if he is called half-white, his African heritage is being discounted, and if he is called half-black, his white heritage is being discounted. So he can be ‘proved’ to be racist by either community. But then many have noted, is he half of one and half of the other? Is he wholly both? Or is he something altogether new? To me, the fractions are just to explain the history of his heritage; by saying half this and half that, it is describing that one parent is from this background, and the other is from that.

It surprises me that there are people today who still believe that interracial marriages and children are wrong; Nick Griffin from the BNP described mixed race children as ‘destructive and unnatural’. As a mixed race person, I am no more or less destructive than any other person, unless I chose to be (which isn’t determined by my Anglo-Indian heritage). Nor am I unnatural – I have eyes and ears and skin… and they’re definitely not synthetic!

This made me think, if I had children, there is no hope for them being ‘pure bred’ (not that I consider either better). There is no way to undo the mixed racedness – my children will be mixed too. It seems ridiculous that I will have to carefully explain to them where they are from, because if they repeat it to others it could cause all kinds of upheaval. Do I tell them that they are multiracial, with Indian and English heritage (and whatever else, depending on their father’s heritage)? Do I use halves and quarters? Do I intricately explain the strands of their DNA; the percentage of homozygous genes and heterozygous genes that go into their genetic makeup?

It just goes to show that these things really shouldn’t matter so much. My heritage is only a part of the description of myself; it does not define who I am as a person. And that is what I am.

No comments:

Post a Comment