African American Studies

Question One

Anglo America developed a one-drop ruleÐ'--stemming from the roots of slaveryÐ'--when dealing with the offspring of what society refers to as "racial/cultural mixtures". This rule says that a person for example who has both black and white ancestry is immediately classified as black, even if the person is 1/8th black. Such hypodescent rules applied to anyone who was not white. The purpose of this classification was to maintain and preserve the "white race", as well as to maintain power and status of the higher castes. (Morning, 49)

Such an identity choice and labeling functions in many different ways. For the dominant group, it reinforces the notion of white supremacy, while the subordinate group gets lower status in society. Anyhow, many mixed people do not even attempt to question such a rule, given that it has been socially conditioned and accepted as the norm. For many mixed African, Asian, and Hispanic Americans, choosing their single ethnic identity is seen as camaraderie and can have some political meaning, like not selling out to the white race. (Root, 14)

In other societies/countries, the rules differ. If you are one drop white, hyperdescent applies; and celebration of mixture is seen. This is seen in many Latin American countries, mainly as a result of European conquest and slavery. ("Hyperdescent") Because there are no dominant white groups in these countries, everyone who is racially mixed appears to be not quite white, but not quite indigenous so the norm is When I go to Mexico, I always notice how being part white or fair skinned elevates status and class. Many of the people with more indigenous features are seen as the inferiors. Yet visiting even Hawaii, the mentality seemed to be very different; mixture was very common and even celebrated. Race, skin color, and features did not seem to be a huge factor when classifying someone or trying to put them into one box. So this one-drop rule prevails still in some places even today, but with more changes in the way we see multiracials and the freedom to choose one's identity, there may be a racial revolution in America that reminds all of us, that race is just a social construct created to set lines and boundaries between whites, and all other ethnicities.

Question Two

The groups that were targeted by anti-miscegenation laws were Asians and Blacks. The purpose of these laws was to maintain and regulate white power and the white race. White American lawmakers clearly did not want any mixing that would taint and jeopardize their authority and control. A clear example of this would be the case involving Loving v. Virginia. When a young black Virginia woman named Mildred Jeter and a white man named Richard Loving got married outside VirginiaÐ'--because interracial marriage was banned at the timeÐ'--they later pleaded guilty for violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriage. Fortunately, such a ruling was held unconstitutional in 1967 after their appeal was over. ("Loving v. Virginia")

Now what is interesting here is that this law did not apply to Mexican people at the time because they were once considered white. When we look at the case Perez v. Sharp (1948) , we see that Andrea Perez, who is a Mexican woman and referred to as white, petitioned to marry Sylvester Davis, a black man. The end result was that the Supreme Court of CA overturned the ban on interracial marriage setting precedent for future rulings based on the Equal Rights Amendment. (The reason that this Mexican woman was seen as white, dates back when the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, giving Hispanics rights for those who were already living in the United States as we know it, while exogamy was taking place, white men marrying Mexican women who had land and property. Again, the white supremacist's purpose to control and maintain power.

There are many lessons we can learn through our legal history concerning the regulation of inter-marriage between Ð''racial' groups. We can see that the government stood and still to this day it seems, stands in favor of white men, in particular, and has consistently kept those who were once considered "inferior" down. We learn and come to a realization that yes, as hard as it is to believe (I know I find it hard to believe and imagine), the U.S. at one point did regulate marriage and restricted those who were non-white to marry whites. We must see that the legacy still lingers on and that the remnant of racism, white supremacy, and slavery are not all quite over. Societal values are always in a constant flux and until there is no more war based on skin color, there will still be racial matters that need mending.

I do believe that Loving v. Virginia (1967) case really has changed U.S. society. I have learned that "norms" are made by social value, and social value is greatly influenced by the laws. So because of the end result of the anti miscegenation law being held unconstitutional, I think that we are moving forward and greatly in terms of deconstructing the mindset that ethnic mixing is taboo. So when we do have ethnic mixing, it is not frowned upon so much because when the law was in effect, the child was born out of wedlock, but now, the child is able to be born upon two parents who if they wanted to, could get married and live the Western perspective of a proper family.

Question Three

Ð''Mixed-race' characters have a long history of being represented as marginal peoples with no home; especially in the media of literature, films, and television. When I say Ð''mixed race' I mean those who are half white and half Ð''other'. There was no real controversy or taboo when it came down to the offspring of two minorities, mainly because there was never any fear or threat of losing and tainting white power and control. As noted in Freda Scott Giles' "From Melodrama to the Movies: The Tragic Type Mulatto as a Type Character", she shows that children born of miscegenation have symbolized racial tension, the struggle against class, and the extent of race serving only as a racial construct.

The pattern of the tragic marginalized person being portrayed as a weak female character started in the 19th century. Usually, she was mulatto and personified as a "yaller gal". (Giles, 64) She was also portrayed as a scheming lady who tries to pass for white, but ends up getting shamed because she is found out. (Giles, 70) Perhaps seeing this in theatres, many African women started