Harold Ford Jr: Where the white women at? at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture

Harold Ford Jr: Where the white women at?

by Carmen Van Kerckhove

UPDATE 10/26/06: I completely forgot about the incident earlier this month where the Corker campaign actually darkened a photo of Ford, in the same manner as that infamous Time magazine cover that darkened OJ Simpson’s mugshot. Thanks dcase for the reminder! Also, the latest in Ford racialiciousness (thanks Tariq for the tip!) comes from Memphis mayor Willie Herenton, who “sees Ford as getting a full pass on the racial front because of his light skin. ‘He can go places and do things that I can’t,’ says the mayor. As for Herenton himself, who faces reelection next year, ‘I’m just too dark.’” I can’t wait to see what’s next in this racial soap opera of a senate race.

Congressman Harold Ford Jr.’s bid for the Tennessee Senate seat has been quite a racialicious ride. Back in March, we reported that he felt the need to reveal that his grandmother was white — perhaps in a misguided attempt to appeal to white voters? Things then took a bizarre turn when his aunt refuted that claim, declaring that Vera Ford was simply a light-skinned black woman.

A few months later in July, we told you that Gawker received a gossip item about Ford having dinner with a white woman and another interracial couple. The email claimed that passersby were “upset at the jungle fever” and that Ford was a “Southern sellout.” What’s even more despicable than the blatant racism in the gossip item? It was sent to Gawker by high profile New York public relations firm, Rubenstein PR. And the whole thing was an attempt to get press for the restaurant Ford was dining at.

According to MSNBC, his opponent Bob Corker has begun airing a commercial that seems designed to appeal to people’s fears of miscegenation. “In the ad, a young white actress playing the stereotype of a “dumb blonde” talks about meeting Ford, a 36-year-old bachelor who is black, “at the Playboy party.” At the end of the ad, she winks and says to the camera, “Harold — call me.””

I don’t know if it’s funny or sad that the “he’s coming for our women!” tactic still works in 2006.

Here’s the video of the ad, which I found via DiversityInc:

Trackbacks & Pings

TheThink on 27 Oct 2006 at 1:26 am

[…] White House Press Secretary Tony Snow might just disagree with using words like “always”. Take an interview Tony Snow did with Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC show Hardball on Tuesday. In the interview, Matthews questioned Snow about the recent political ad campaign against Harold Ford Jr., in which a naked White woman posing as a Playboy playmate says to Ford Jr., “Call me!” […]

Comments

Y. Carrington wrote:

What a dumbshit ad! Do they really think that’s gonna work?

Maybe the RNC knows something we don’t…

Posted 25 Oct 2006 at 2:36 pm ¶
dcase wrote:

It certainly has a strong possibility of working on the voters they are aiming it at. Harold Ford, Jr. needs to attract Republican whites to win. A month or so ago NPR did a story on Ford’s appeal to these types of voters and a couple of those interviewed basicaly intimated that they would attempt to keep an open mind but but they would have trouble voting for him regardless of how attractive his positions are.

Now that the polls are suggesting that he is peeling some of these voters away, they are pulling out the trump card. First, it was campaign literature on which they darkened Ford-a very light-skinned black man- up like OJ on TIME. Now, this ad.

On another note, the first actress also represented a snide but subtle shot at black voters. She is black with mussed hair and she says, “he’s good looking, isn’t that enough?” Hmm…?

Posted 25 Oct 2006 at 3:36 pm ¶
dcase wrote:

Pardon. For the sake of accuracy: the first actress says “Harold Ford looks nice, isn’t that enough?”

Posted 25 Oct 2006 at 3:38 pm ¶
IkoIko wrote:

No Carmen: Corker isn’t running the ad– the Republican National Committee is (see below for why the distinction is *very* key).

And it fits with one of the oldest earned media tricks in the book during election season which Ford played right into.

First: I do have to say I found it interesting that they didn’t use a Black, Latina, or Asian Playboy bunny (but then women’s groups would be up in arms about the sexism). Strangely, none of the usual conservative camp’s women’s advocates are complaining about the demeaning portrayals in the ad (triple standard?). Should there be hell to pay at RNC headquarters come Nov. 8?

Anyway, I stress that this is the RNC and *not* Corker’s doing. This is the time period, by federal law, before an election when “independent” groups (i.e. national coordinating committees like the Republican and Democratic National Committees, the congressional campaign committees, and “527″ groups) must produce and place ads without coordination between the candidates themselves.

The RNC– under current law– could not confirm or deny its existence to Corker or anyone in his campaign before airing it… but could (hypothetically, through an anonymous intermediary) alert the media to its existence.

No outlet would have reason to air such a spot unless it was paid for, because it would be free advertising during campaign season– a clear violation of election law.

But when any outlet did eventually air it, Ford made it a much bigger deal by accusing of corker of having something to do with it– which he didn’t.

Why? Because, however disingenuous, Corker could legitimately protest the use of the ad and request the RNC not air it (which he in fact did).

So now this ad, which would have been a standard-issue attack ad in a season full of them, becomes not only a commercial, but a news item as well. This news item, in turn, gets played more than it would have not only within the state, but outside the state as well, on t.v. and in print, and gets the attention of more voters than it would have normally, raising more questions about Ford than it would have otherwise.

Desperate move, sure, but the RNC has nothing to lose and much $$$ cash with two weeks to go. The spot won’t hurt Ford in the long run, but it definitely put him under some scrutiny. This is not the only race where this is the case, merely the only case where race is being played by the national party more than the opposing candidate as an issue.

The TN Senate race has not been the nicest of campaigns, with quite a lot of down home mud slung on both sides, to say the least.

Even if you shut out the ever-present din of pollsters and pundits alike, race is a huge element in this particular contest, but it’s coming more from the electorate the side players than the candidates. Many white voters, despite what they say to the cameras, have admitted that they just don’t want to elect the first African-American from to the US Senate from a southern state (although technically George Allen holds that honor…). Meanwhile, Ford needs as much of the state’s 16% African-American voters to turn out as possible. So every attack ad that questions his bachelor, inside the beltway, party lifestyle and “questionable” racial background and social status is designed just as much to suppress the turnout among “people of color” as it is to play up the negatives among “white” undecided voters who truly would start to gravitate his way by now.

Again, no commercial will “persuade”, but they will raise “awareness” so they are worth the money if you have it. That’s why you don’t see a flurry of these spots until the last month of campaign season.

Seeing Ford confronting Corker in the parking lot of Corker’s press event last weekend, jabbing his finger to protest the “sudden”(!) tone of the race “going personal” (!!) I, for one, definitely grinned at least, thinking of how Ford has used his family’s political ties and business influence throughout the state (criminal charges and allegations notwithstanding) and Corker has used his family’s political ties and business influence throughout the state (questionable practices and dealings while mayor of Chattanooga notwithstanding).

More interestingly: Ford is technically a conservative Democrat, Corker a moderate Republican. Both come from wealthy families and both spent part of their early years outside of the state. Both are decent enough in a scuzzy climate. If they had actually spent time debating the issues, but also being more upfront about the racial politics in the state, might it have changed the climate of this whole race, maybe others? We’ll never know…

Posted 25 Oct 2006 at 5:03 pm ¶
AskThisBlackWoman wrote:

Why is it a possible “misguided attempt to appeal to white voters” when someone so obviously multiracial brings attention to the fact that they have white ancestry? Perhaps his aunt did refute this claim by saying that Vera Ford was simply a light-skinned black woman, but you need to understand…black folks don’t come “light” unless they have white in their ancestry.
I believe the only people “allowed” to be biracial or multiracial in this country are people mixed with white and Asian and it’s not just the “one-drop” culture that supports it. I hear time and time again, old-school blacks and hapas disempowering folks of mixed black and white ancestry. Harold Ford is obviously mixed-race, perhaps not a first-generation biracial person, but he is multiracial. His stating that he is mixed isn’t about denying blackness or an attempt to get white votes…it’s the truth.
–www.askthisblackwoman.com

Posted 25 Oct 2006 at 6:08 pm ¶
Kevin wrote:

Sad. Definitely sad.

Posted 25 Oct 2006 at 6:15 pm ¶
Kenda wrote:

I wish things weren’t this way, but I think this ad will work for Corker and Ford will lose.

Posted 25 Oct 2006 at 6:23 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:

>Harold Ford is obviously mixed-race, perhaps not a first-generation biracial person, but he is multiracial

Yes, there are a lot of multigenerational multiracial people (of all colors and ethnic identifications - i.e.people raised and self-identified in the X-community, but with X, Y, and Z heritage). Multigens deserve the support of the mixed communities at large.

>I hear time and time again, old-school blacks and hapas disempowering folks of mixed black and white ancestry.

OK, of COURSE some old-school black Americans are going to play the one-drop card - 1) it used to be a de facto survival trait with few options for mixed people, and 2) it plays into the solidarity concept (as if solidarity is only forged through common ethnicity and, often, skin color).

But I’ve never felt that hapas are taking anything away from multiracial people - where have you heard this?

Posted 25 Oct 2006 at 6:30 pm ¶
makethelogobigger wrote:

“This is not the only race where this is the case, merely the only case where race is being played by the national party more than the opposing candidate as an issue.”

Not the only place unfortunately.

The RNC is MORE than just casually mentioning racial issues in the NY metro area with the illegal immigrant issue (among other things), and how the country is being overrun.

Here’s the little gem I got from them in the mail, of course, affiliated with no specific candidate:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7729/1169/1600/repub.0.jpg

Posted 25 Oct 2006 at 6:35 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:

It’s not up on the NPR website yet, but this afternoon on All Things Considered, I heard about this, and also that the RNC spokesperson initially disavowed the ad (implying, I guess, that it came from a state-run PAC), even though the commercial says that the RNC approves the message.

The RNC spokesperson said that he did not see the racial overtones in the message (!) Ah well, it’s good to get a cheap laugh on the way home.

Posted 25 Oct 2006 at 6:39 pm ¶
AskThisBlackWoman wrote:

“But I’ve never felt that hapas are taking anything away from multiracial people - where have you heard this?”
Lyonside, I believe it was a hapa that wrote the first post, “Carmen Van Kerckhove”. But I have to say; even among my mixed-race (Asian and white) friends I hear the same sentiment. I think it is a very sad and problematic thing for mixed-race people to question another mixed-race person when they choose to reveal they are mixed. To suggest that Harold Ford is the one with questionable political motivations is offensive given the overtly racist tone of his opponent’s campaign.
–www.askthisblackwoman.com

Posted 25 Oct 2006 at 7:13 pm ¶
IkoIko wrote:

Makethelogobigger: should have qualified, my apologies. this one of the handful of national races (discounting the thousands of state and local seats being watched) where a candidate’s race has been an issue, either because one or both sides made it so, and the national parties weighed in to exacerbate it for worse or worse.

I too heard the NPR report, but I have to say while the RNC spokesperson dodge was shifty at best, I’d separate that from the content. The dodge only proves they didn’t feel 100% comfortable with it, a sure sign that it made someone high up uncomfortable or offended the field troops, and that there continues to be a lot of dissention at headquarters right now.

Bear in mind that not only can’t the “independent groups” communicate with the candidates in terms of ad production and media buys right now; but they have no idea what the candidates are up to either.

Also, the RNC made a huge error in Aug/Sep by not coordinating its field troop plans with the congressional and senatorial campaigns in terms of messaging when it could do so by law. So now, any messaging, planning, and spending truly is going to come at the expense of key spokespeople being adequately prepared for what transpires. Same with the Dems.

The law works great if you take advantage of it.

Back to the legitimate question of content: definitely offensive and tasteless were the immediate reaction, but after a second of reflection, I thought: Just like Harold Ford, Jr. should’ve done, it’s not worth touching, and it’ll backfire massively. Here’s why…

Weigh it this way: Which actually is more offensive– the issues themselves (immigration, security, terrorism, and taxes) or how they’re presented?

OK, now think: Wasn’t Osama bin Laden the actual “poster child” for the “war on terror” back in 2001 in the first place? If so, he hasn’t been caught. Afghanistan faces renewed threat from the Taliban, which we supposedly beat. And by raising “hot button” issues, the GOP simply increases the potential that voters will assess its own performance on those isssues, not the Dems’ potential governance ability?

That’s why its hard to label this racist for one party– tasteless and a bad tactic yes, but racist? This time I don’t think so.

It would be rendering the issues almost off limits, when one party has all but raised the very issues themselves (albeit clumsily), and I’m guessing you’d want all candidates to account for their positions on them– especially when the record of accomplishment has been so minimal (or dismal?) to date.

What would make it push the boundaries, if not go past, in my book, is employing imagery from the threats of what’s been ignored all along (i.e. North Korea and Iran, racial unrest in Spain in UK, actual bloodshed in Iraq, etc.). The hypocrisy of the faceless and those who don’t enjoy liberty (e.g. Patriot Act anyone, etc.)

Ironically: I believe the Dems actually would’ve been smart to have used the image of Osama bin Laden first as a critique of what the Administration hasn’t accomplished. But then, the image would not have been labeled “racist”. Ironic? Dems would be smart to counter with the racial images I cite above, if they wanted to go tat for tat, and lay off the culture of corruption nonsense (they were part of it too).

And if the roles were reversed, with a DNC-led reelection push, I don’t know if the tactics would be any less different or justified. Bothersome, yes, but no less different.

Posted 25 Oct 2006 at 7:41 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:

>“But I’ve never felt that hapas are taking anything away from multiracial people - where have you heard this?”
Lyonside, I believe it was a hapa that wrote the first post, “Carmen Van Kerckhove”.

Ok, I’m not speaking for Carmen (she can defend herself), but I remmeber the original post she’s referring to earlier in the campaign. And until that point, I believe, Ford did NOT say that he identified as mixed or biracial, and he was running as an African-American candidate. She said “PERHAPS,” and the criticism is that Ford seems to have first raised the race card (but perhaps he also was trying to nip the whole thing in the bud - it IS Tennesee, and if elected, he’d be the first African-American senator from TN since Reconstruction(!) BUT the rest of this article goes on to slam the Corker campaign and the RNC. Again, as a mixed (non-hapa) person, I’m not offended by Carmen’s phrasing.

I’m sorry hapas in your daily life don’t like other mixed folk. You may need better friends
—————
AH - and via Daily Kos (so take that for whatever it’s worth):
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/oct/25/tn_sen_corker_radio_ad_has_tom_tom_drums_during_mentions_of_ford

If you listen to the radio ad, you do hear heavy drumming for Ford, and a female vocal for Corker. But I hear a lot of ominous drumming in negative ads, without race being a factor. It’s probably another example of tasteless/clueless, but not overly racist.

Posted 25 Oct 2006 at 7:53 pm ¶
makethelogobigger wrote:

No problem IkoIko. I was merely pointing out on how many fronts the RNC seems to be waging a political war. I’m surprised I haven’t gotten anything warning me of the Axis of Evil yet. (Maybe for Halloween.)

Re: presentation, well, it goes a long way. I think the scare tactic card may be played and that a better approach might be one of understatement.

As for the race card, I can’t speak to that as I’m not black so I will not be as sensitive to the subtleties of race-bating in the RNC tactics arsenal – I’m using a lot of military terms, they tend to like that – although I do recognize the hidden meaning in a lot of what they say.

Civility has long been eradicated from politics, if it even had any to begin with. Just check out the Huffington post and any of Alec Baldin’s posts. Talk about chumming the RNC waters.

And because of how things have turned so negative, I propose a law for all future political advertising: candidates may no longer talk about anything OTHER than their record or themselves. Period. No mentioning of other candidates, or veiled references like ‘some members of congress voted to…’ None of that.

Just straight-up, tell me what YOU stand for.

Posted 25 Oct 2006 at 8:06 pm ¶
AskThisBlackWoman wrote:

“I’m sorry hapas in your daily life don’t like other mixed folk. You may need better friends ”
You might be right. I’ll get on that right now!
–www.askthisblackwoman.com

Posted 25 Oct 2006 at 8:29 pm ¶
Tariq Nelson wrote:

The Mayor of Memphis (Harold’s home district) has said that because Harold Ford is light skinned he gets a pass on race

Posted 25 Oct 2006 at 9:11 pm ¶
makethelogobigger wrote:

(sp - race-baiting)

Posted 25 Oct 2006 at 9:19 pm ¶
IkoIko wrote:

Lyonside: you got it. In this case, the Corker radio spot in question recycles the same music/soundtrack from a t.v. spot that doesn’t even mention Ford at all. After listening closely, the implication on the radio spot is that they’re “war drums” of all things (i.e. vote for Ford = vote for being soft on war), and in the t.v. spot, that they’re rallying drums for Corker. Context is key.

[FWIW: I’m purposefully not linking to or citing specific ads, because that’s part of the tactic parties rely upon as their campaigns draw to a close. In other words, the more you pass the ads around– even if you dislike them– you’re only doing the party a favor by giving them free exposure, enhancing their value over and above the initial cost of producing them.]

Other interesting sidenote left out of this whole episode: Where Corker apparently had gained some points among voters was the issue of Ford’s maturity for the Senate seat. Not a question of “youth” but simply “maturity”. Witness the earlier confrontation in the parking lot, but also Ford’s quote this week– picked up by the Associated Press– regarding to the very ad that sparked this thread.

Lost in all the brouhaha was the fact he did attend a Playboy Super Bowl party in Jacksonville, Fl– along with a bunch of other Dems and GOPers I’m certain. His response on Tuesday: “I was there. I like football, and I like girls.” Methinks he’ll do just fine in the Senate if he wins. *sigh*…

If anything, I’d accuse the DNC et al. for using race in this specific contest in ways they didn’t need to, using it as a smokescreen instead of lens in discussing important issues and for overlooking the personality quirks of bratty candidate; and the RNC for being way too coy about the mixed signals they’ve sent through the bizarre ads they’ve launched this season while taking some truly divisive policy stances affecting various communities of color they claim to want under their tent this election year.

Oh well, at least no one can say race is being ignored. Exploited and taken for granted maybe, but ignored? Eh…

Posted 26 Oct 2006 at 4:47 am ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:

Actually, the RNC isn’t responsible for this ad. Because of the campaign finance stuff, a certain segment of the RNC ads will come from private financing, and by law the RNC cannot say anything to the people making the ad about what goes into the ad. This is one of those ads, apparently. They also can’t tell the people running the ad to stop running it. It’s run its course now, so it’s a dead issue in terms of that, but the legal issue seems to be that the RNC didn’t put this together and couldn’t pull the ad, even though there name is on it. That strikes me as a pretty bad consequence of campaign finance law, but I guess it’s not the first really bad consequence of that particular law.

As for Mehlman’s not seeing it, I believe him. I think people convinced that the general colorblind attitude is the way to go really want to see things in the best light whenever something like this happen, and it’s not because they’re trying to avoid thinking of people as racists. It’s because they would feel as they were being racist by thinking something is wrong with a white woman making a pass at a black man. I think that hides the undertones that might be there in the appeal to actual racists, because they themselves don’t want to be able to comprehend such a response. I don’t think, therefore, that Mehlman has to be lying to say what he says. It means the racial dynamics aren’t as clear to him as they could be, but that doesn’t mean his response isn’t a natural one for someone holding to the colorblind ideal.

Posted 26 Oct 2006 at 9:24 am ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

AskThisBlackWoman and Lyonside,

To clarify, I called Ford’s revelation of his white grandmother “perhaps…a misguided attempt to appeal to white voters” not because I think there’s anything wrong with him identifying multiracially. (If you take a look at our various blogs and workshops, you’ll see that I’m *all* about people’s right to self-identify however they want.)

I thought it was misguided because most white people (and most people in the US, really) buy into the one drop rule — particularly when it comes to those of African-American heritage. So if he thought that white voters would view him more favorably if they knew he was mixed, rather than “just black,” that would have been a pretty naive move on his part.

Posted 26 Oct 2006 at 9:26 am ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:

Most white people in Tennessee may buy into the one-drop rule, which is what matters for this election, but I don’t think it’s true everwhere in the U.S. My students in the northeast tell me that they consider kids of a black parent and a white parent to be both black and white. This isn’t just a few students. It’s the majority of several years’ worth of students at two different institutions. There were minority views, most notably the view that people should just be able to choose their racial identification and the view that race is just meaningless, but virtually no one expressed anything like the classical one-drop rule.

It still may be a one-drop rule, but it works both ways rather than just one way. I think the fact that people describe the twins in England who most people say look white and black as white and black is further evidence of this. See also the work of Holly Heard, which I just discovered yesterday. I need to take a look at this in more detail if it’s available, but it looks to me to confirm my initial observations about the changing one-drop rule.

Posted 26 Oct 2006 at 9:44 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:

Sorry all, OT-ness coming:

Jeremy:

>See also the work of Holly Heard, which I just >discovered yesterday.

I scanned this pretty quick, but it looks like the study assumes that the father is in the home. I also wonder if they included phenotype of the child in their self-identification. If the entire world sees you as X, it’s often easier for that person to identify as X, even if they at the same time acknowledge that they are X and Y.

My white parent (mom) was my primary caregiver, and identified me as biracial, and I continued to do so. My AA father was present, but not in the home. My phenotype also turned out ambiguous - as a child I passed for Asian, as an adult I pass most often as Hispanic or Pacific Islander (by passing, I mean unintentionally - it’s what strangers assume first).

I think my phenotype reinforced my early training (and vice versa) - there was no way for me to claim either parent’s race without being laughed out of the room, so why bother?

Posted 26 Oct 2006 at 10:32 am ¶
IkoIko wrote:

The RNC didn’t have responsibility for “creating” the ad, but they certainly had “responsibility” for it.

The standard line parties follow goes something like this: “we only write the checks to an independent individual. That individual, under the law– mind you– is responsible for spending the money in certain states. Part of that expenditure may include hiring outside companies to produce ads. We’re certainly not aware of what gets done of every little detail at that level.”

Uh huh…

The ad was fully commissioned and paid for by the RNC’s “independent expenditure unit”. The IEU can’t technically “coordinate or communicate” its activities with any candidate or the full RNc (note I said the full RNC).

That means when shat hits the fan on stuff like this, not only does no one honestly know who really is responsible, but no one technically has to claim responsibility either. And as a bonus, appeals have to be made by Republicans to one another basically through intermediaries (i.e. the media) to remove offending ads- guaranteeing more attention for the ads themselves.

Knowing enough about how campaign finance law (especially BCRA) gets flicked, no one should be fooled into cutting anyone slack here.

That said, I totally agree with you that RNC Chairman Mehlman (grin on the name) was sincere in not intentionally trying to make or ignore a racial point per se.

The overall strategy (lame tho’ it be) has been to paint Ford as “idle rich spoiled liberal playboy prone to temper tantrums who’s an aloof outsider disconnected from the interests and needs of his state” (sorta like the early anti-Gore prez strategy minus the “playboy” factor).

Since there are few “black” playboy bunnies (sorry), they’ve been slinging everything at him without much luck, because he’s actually been carrying himself much better on the trail than expected. They just got careless and didn’t pay attention to what signals their message might send outside the state.

And I also truly believe that the “racy” ad really was only intended to run for five, count’em, five days. How come? Because the new “Shaky” anti-Ford “independent” ads implying he took porno money from Hollywood sleaze merchants and wants to give the abortion pill to schoolchildren starting running in Knoxville and statewide.

Aren’t short-term memories priceless in election season?

My GOP beef: GOP ran a bland candidate who went out of his way to ignore race in the state in a contest that has national importance and symbolism.

My Dem beef: echoes Carmen with one addition– Ford should have consistently acknowledged very early on who he was personally *and* in the context of the state (precisely because he spent so much time away from it growing up). Using that narrative as a point of pride is a powerful virtue in a racially charged state, and gives you the gravitas to talk about issues that matter without blowing your cool, when you’re aiming for image makeover (see Douglas Wilder’s race for governor, Ed Brooke’s run for Senate, et al.).

Posted 26 Oct 2006 at 11:30 am ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:

Lyonside: Yes, she seems to be talking about just cases where both parents were at least somewhat equivalently involved in raising their children. I’m not sure if that affects my point, though. All I was saying is that this is evidence that the one-drop rule as classically held does not seem to be operating anymore at least in certain segments of the population. Even if this evidence just applies to families with both parents involved with raising children, that’s significant in terms of the one-drop rule not functioning everywhere the way it did.

Posted 26 Oct 2006 at 2:10 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:

Jeremy:

Yes, it does seem significant… until you take into consideration the percentage of kids, mixed or otherwise, being raised in single-parent homes, or in blended families.

Posted 26 Oct 2006 at 5:54 pm ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:

It still seems significant to me, even given that. If the one-drop rule isn’t universally applicable, then I don’t think it’s really the one-drop rule anymore. If the racial classification rules people are using don’t reflect what the one-drop rule says, even if it’s in a smaller set of cases, then it’s not that rule governing racial classification anymore but something more complex.

Posted 26 Oct 2006 at 9:21 pm ¶
Ann wrote:

The ODR still exists.

Many so-called “bi-racial/multi-racial” people born after 1967 are able to claim their racial heritage on all sides.

Before 1967, any “black American” born with white blood in them could not claim this white blood, even if most of the white blood that found its ways into black people’s veins entered via white slaver rapists.

Black Americans are the ONLY racial group in America who are not allowed to claim all of their genetic racial heritage.

Everyone else, (Asian/white mix, Native American/white mix, etc.) is allowed to accept and acknowledge ALL of themselves—the non-white blood along with the white blood.

Of course, I do not expect very many black people to claim the white rapist blood that flows in their veins anytime soon. That’s a thorn in the side of black Americans that we black people still struggle to forgive white America for.

Fo so long this country has treated black people’s blood as if it is something to be inferior, something to be ashamed of.

If anything, it is the rapist white and native American blood (courtesy of slavery) that flows in the veins of black people that black people are most ashamed of.

White America, and for that matter, the rest of non-black America, still believes in the ODR as used against black people.

Maybe if white America can finally start to acknowledge the massive gang-rapes done during slavery and segregation to black women that forever changed the genetic structure of black people and the genetic ties that black people have with white people, then maybe America can finally start seeing black people as what they really are:

A “mixed-blood” race of people.

But, not much chance of that happening anytime soon.

Posted 26 Oct 2006 at 10:06 pm ¶
EndUnkind wrote:

Ann: So all black people, and only “black” people suffered and continue to suffer from the rampant assault of horny “white” men (and increasingly hot and bothered) “white” women and their insatiable lusty cootie thoughts, huh?

Our family pinpointed the introduction of White blood into our slave ancestral mix, when and where it happened, and the circumstances surrounding it.

We learned hrough exhaustive research from both sides of the family and dialogue, that the encounter *was* consensual. It caused a scandal to be sure, and made for quite some gossip back in the day– way before the Civil War, even. Go figure, we had a pure horny “black” female ancestor that wanted to chose to get her freak on with a white boy, did so, and it bore fruit. We’ve learned not to deny it, not to fear it, not to be ashamed of it.

ODR aside, I’m finding your shrill preoccupation with a particular conception of “racial rape” (especially since it lets many many parties off the hook) offensive to anyone who suffers rape of any form– women and men of *any* color alike. It’s diluting the effectivness of the term, and I’m not sure where you’re going with the point every time you make it on every subject here.

I like your spirit and vocality, indeed, but to define racial identity upon victimhood every time, especially as a product of rape, it’s just pathological. Maybe that’s your point? In that case, I’m sorry for you, truly.

Still, that’s your choice to do so for you if you wish. I won’t question it further. I won’t speak for others, but please don’t cast that net around me without my consent.

Posted 27 Oct 2006 at 10:18 am ¶
Ann wrote:

“Some prominent planters flaunted their slave mistresses and mulatto children. David Dickson of Georgia, one of the most celebrated leaders in the movement to reform southern agriculture, lost his wife early in life, took a mistress, and accepted a measure of social disapproval to live openly with her and their children.

“Ex-slaves talked both about the forcing of black women by white men and about strong and affectionate interracial relationships. James Dallas Burruss, Fisk University’s first professor of mathematics, who had been one of three children born in Tennessee to a white father and a slave mother, said that his parents “lived together in affectionate and respectful companionship.” And an ex-slave in Arkansas described his white father as having been “a fool” about his mother.

“Southern court records containing divorce suits in which slaves are mentioned, in effect, as correspondents suggest that meaningful affairs, if not common, were not rare.”

“Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made”, by Eugene Genovese.

Yes, I am well aware that some white men were humane, and loving, towards the black women and girls they kept as slaves.

And, yes, I am aware of the cruelty of rape in that it knows no bounds when it comes to its victims:

Both women, men and children.

Posted 27 Oct 2006 at 4:58 pm ¶
civil wrote:

i could never subscribe to the odr…it would mean accepting white superiority

Posted 28 Oct 2006 at 5:59 pm ¶
Tee wrote:

It just goes to show how subliminally racist the majority of us are in this country–Black and White. For so long, Whites have been considered better than blacks in the minds of most. Many people subliminally make statements such as ‘just black’ as mentioned in many of the previous posts.

God help us all!

P.S. I am not ‘just black’. I AM Black.

Posted 29 Dec 2006 at 6:01 pm ¶
Mindy wrote:

EndUnkind…LOL! A pure black “horny” female ancestor who wanted to get her freak on with a white boy? LMAOOOOOO!!!!!!

Whew…wow. Here’s the deal. I’m with AskThisBlackWoman. She said black people don’t turn out very light if there isn’t some white or “other” ancestry there. I’m living proof of this. I look completely European with fine features, bright blue eyes, snow-white skin, and silky hair. When people learn that I have African blood in me, they often want to know how I turned out like this. Most often it is black people who ask me…white folks know the deal, although some might not believe that somebody who looks just like one of “them” could have black ancestry.

I believe that to anyone with good eyesight, it is plain to see that Ford does not look like most “black” men. His grandmother clearly wasn’t a white woman. However, light skin and hazel eyes like his don’t come poof! out of nowhere. Like many people, he had white ancestors…perhaps more than the average black American. He is multiracial, period. Halle Berry is biracial and as much as some people say she looks white, I don’t see it. I would say she looks like a black/South Asian mix.

I’ve heard people say, “Well, I’m lighter than my parents and they’re both black”. To that I say…that might be true, but there had to be mixing of some kind in the family tree. It might have occurred centuries ago and now displays itself in hair type, or eyes, or skin. People talk about denying blackness, but what about people who deny the obvious too? Harold Ford has probably done a disservice in the minds of many black Americans by claiming that his grandmother was white…but it is foolish of people to deny that he is clearly mixed. He looks almost lighter than Derek Jeter, who is biracial. Black people don’t come in all colors without reason. White people don’t all look the same either. And no, it isn’t always because Master Charley or Master John took a poor little slave behind the outhouse or into the fields and had his vicious way with her. This is in response to Ann. Some of us have parents of different races who fell in love and had children. Some of us had grandparents and ancestors further down the line who did the same, despite the severe consequences of those relationships. Not all white men and women were the enemy, even in that time.

I’ve researched my bloodline and my family history all the way back to the early 1600’s and there is absolutely nothing which suggests that my multiracial/biracial heritage occurred as a result of rape. When I see myself in the mirror, I don’t feel guilty or ashamed of my white ancestry and why should I be? I want to be able to accept all of me…the black, the white, and the person within. This country won’t move forward until people stop defining others based on race. I don’t like the ad, it’s stupid, and I’m not a Republican. However, how Ford feels about his grandmother is his business (in my opinion). It is clear that she wasn’t white, but I don’t understand the hostility expressed towards him by so many people. I know people who swear that certain relatives were white, although the photos say differently, but I don’t make an issue of it. This is how I feel…I hope I didn’t offend anyone.

Posted 27 Apr 2007 at 12:48 pm ¶
Walt wrote:

“Memphis mayor Willie Herenton, who “sees Ford as getting a full pass on the racial front because of his light skin. ‘He can go places and do things that I can’t,’ says the mayor.”>>>

What does he mean by this? He cannot be say a Mayor? Or Senator? Or Sec. of Defence? Or run for President because he is black?

Posted 07 Aug 2008 at 4:22 pm ¶