Why the word “mutt” makes me wince
by Racialicious guest contributor Luke Lee
“Who’s doggy’s daddy? A DNA test can determine the breeds that make your mutt”
Making its way to the very front page of Yahoo! on Monday night was a video and a news article about a DNA kit which, as the folks at Yahoo! so eloquently put it, is able to tell dog-owners the different breeds in their “mutt.”
Now, I realize that we’re talking about dogs here but the word “mutt” is one that makes me wince no matter what the context. And though the word, when talking about dogs, is in supposedly a completely canine context, I don’t think it’s in an entirely different context without any sort of implications of cultural attitudes that carry over to the ways in which our society sees and talks about mixed race folks.
The most glaring aspect of the word and it’s popular usage when it comes to dogs is that people, dog-owners just don’t know what the dog is which results in the “mutt” description. There’s nothing wrong with this because god knows that a lot of dog-owners don’t know what their dog is but at the same time, many dog-owners do know very well. “Mutt,” to me, implies very much a sort of hairbrained “I don’t know. It’s just a bunch of everything thrown in there. I lost track” which is fine if people want to talk about their dogs like that, if people want to talk about themselves like that but its lackadaisical presence in the way people talk about race and in this case, dog breeds, fosters a sort of “don’t know so reduce it down” attitude. Don’t get me wrong, people should identify however they want to and if someone identifies and calls themselves a mutt “because it’s simple” then that’s great for them. However, as the word has the overriding suggestion of a lack of knowledge when it comes to one’s background, it’s not the most sensitive term to be flinging around at least when it comes to real people. I know this isn’t a perfect comparison, but it’d be like if I proudly told people I was “Oriental” and preferred the term over “Asian” or “Asian American.” If I did then that’s my business but it would inevitably give people the idea that it’s an OK term to use when describing Orientals Asian Americans. And also, I’m not saying that dog-owners who use the term are somehow insensitive and subtly racist when it comes to issues of race but rather the culture in our language perpetuates the idea that mutt=potpourri and if to be mixed is to be a mutt then to be a mutt means to not know what you are (and not care) which I don’t think is remotely the case for many, many mixed people.
Even in terms of dog health and genetic disposition, it’s the same sort of dialogue to that when it comes to stereotypes about mixed race people. For example, though people often joke that “purebred” dogs look better for being just that, a purebred, they also note that those dogs can have some serious health problems. On the other side of the coin, “mutts” are seen as inherently healthier–a result of supposedly “weeding out” diseases and negative traits from different breeds. In the same way, people assume mixed race men and women to be semi-superhumans with the “best of both worlds” when it comes to the genetic traits of the biological parents. Though genetic diversity is a factor in determining the potential health of a person, it would be a huge mistake to make that the only issue and stereotype all mixed race folks as real-life Wesley Snipes Blade characters. To some degree, these stereotypes make it hard to address very real health issues facing many mixed race people, especially children. A very tragic reality is that when it comes to blood diseases like leukemia for boys and girls, the national bone marrow donor registry is not exactly overflowing with donors of mixed ancestry (or donors of Asian, Latino and Black heritage for that matter). As (for the most part)* a person’s potential match is most likely to be from someone of similar racial/ethnic background, it’s important for folks to clear away the cultural stereotypes when it comes to these issues.
Now of course if you follow the news link and to the company’s website that stirred all this press, you’ll find that their aim isn’t “wow, i’m curious about what [my dog] is!” but rather legitimate health concerns over certain dog breeds which an owner with a mixed dog who doesn’t know the background of the dog would have no way of knowing which then would seemingly go against everything I just said. Actually, I think it just reinforces the importance of challenging stereotypes be it those that people have of dogs or people because in any case, perceiving something as a “mutt” and then falling into stereotype isn’t exactly a good idea.
And finally. Seriously, was it really necessary to use the line “Who’s your doggy’s daddy?” with this story? Does this seem a little racist and woman-blaming to anybody else? I realize that this is supposed to be completely tongue-in-cheek but the real world stereotypes about real world people, specifically mixed race people, is that they just don’t know who their fathers are (because, you know, mixed race=black and white and we all know that black men just run off after white women get pregnant, right?). Was there no other possible title than some Jerry Springer show paternity test prompt in which the women are all castigated for not knowing “daddy”? Which reminds me of a story. A multiracial friend of mine recently told me an exchange in which her boss, upon learning that this friend of mine was mixed race with a Black father and a Puerto Rican mother, remarked with all incredulity, “Oh, you know your father?! Wow!”
The point isn’t that the way in which people talk about dogs is exactly the same in which people talk about race and mixed race issues but it’s an interesting jump-off point to consider because for dogs it’s been a staple term in our language whereas for mixed race men and women, it’s largely been an insensitive one at best, a cover-up meant to denigrate mixed race folks through racist stereotypes. And because it’s language and culture, there’s always an inevitable…overlap of the two (yes, I refrained from saying “mixing”).
*As far as I know, a similar racial/ethnic background can significantly increase odds of finding a match but it is in no way a 100% sure bet. There is the possibility that a Latino man can be the perfect donor match to an Asian woman, for example.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Sewere wrote:
Jesus, Luke I’ve been trying to find out what happened to you when I couldn’t get to your site at Real Men Are Not…. Glad to see you back in action.
Posted 01 Jun 2007 at 12:49 pm ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:
I think in the case of dogs you can call it a mutt even if you know it’s parentage and breed mix. It has nothing to do with whether you know it but whether it’s mixed-breed. I’m not up on how the term is used for people (I’m not sure I was even aware that it was), but if it connotes ignorance then I don’t think it’s an analogous usage.
Posted 01 Jun 2007 at 3:45 pm ¶
Koko wrote:
*Claps*
That was pretty good and thorough. I never thought about it like that. But I agree with your points, though it doesn’t really apply to every person.
Posted 01 Jun 2007 at 5:41 pm ¶
daddyinastrangeland wrote:
Look at some of the news coverage in the last year about the rise of “designer” mixed-breeds (labradoodles, etc.) and breeders’/aficionados’ attempts to get them recognized as breeds or entered into dog shows. Notice the reactions of mainline traditional kennel-club types to this. Lots of talk about purity, breed integrity, etc.
In a dog-loving culture that revolves around categorizing breeds via specific characteristics, and those characteristics being preserved by enforced endogamy, then yes, “mutt” as a descriptor for mixed-breed brings with it a history of mixed-breed dogs being seen as inferior, impure. Again, I’m talking about the folks who breed and buy certified pure-breeds and enter them in shows, etc. And I’m purposely ignoring the “hybrid vigor” thing ‘cuz that’s another can of worms.
Just as “bitch” was taken as a term for a female dog and turned into a derogatory term for human women because of implied associations of promiscuity, “mutt” as well brings with it aspersions based on presumed promiscuity of the parental units (especially the mother) which led to such impurity. As for the term leaving the canine world and entering the human, we only have to look at the etymological speculation that “mulatto” derives from a term for the equally “impure” (and sterile) mule to find an analogy.
In college, a friend of mine who was a gay man of color tried to explain to a group of friends which included several mixed invididuals active in our multiracial student group why he went against the flow of campus LGBT activism and did not like or employ the word “queer,” as a reclaimed derogatory word supposedly robbed of its oppressive power, by asking us what we’d think if “mutt” became the reclaimed, adopted, “empowered” label for mixed-race people.
Posted 01 Jun 2007 at 6:12 pm ¶
Mina wrote:
“For example, though people often joke that ‘purebred’ dogs look better for being just that, a purebred, they also note that those dogs can have some serious health problems. On the other side of the coin, ‘mutts’ are seen as inherently healthier–a result of supposedly ‘weeding out’ diseases and negative traits from different breeds.”
I thought it wasn’t about weeding out diseases but about avoiding inbreeding.
The version I heard is that an individual with more-mixed ancestry probably carries the same number of recessive genes for health problems as an individual with less-mixed ancestry does. It’s just that in the latter’s case the odds of those genes being for the *same* health problem are higher. For an example, if one’s great-grandfather has only one copy of a gene, one might still get two copies from him by having his son’s son for a dad and his other son’s daughter for a mom.
“Just as ‘bitch’ was taken as a term for a female dog and turned into a derogatory term for human women because of implied associations of promiscuity, ‘mutt’ as well brings with it aspersions based on presumed promiscuity of the parental units (especially the mother) which led to such impurity. As for the term leaving the canine world and entering the human, we only have to look at the etymological speculation that ‘mulatto’ derives from a term for the equally ‘impure’ (and sterile) mule to find an analogy.”
Right on. Can’t people just leave those terms for referring to dogs, mules, etc. and not stick them on us too?
Posted 01 Jun 2007 at 9:01 pm ¶
gabby wrote:
I’ve heard quite a few white American people, when in discussions about race or ethnic background, refer to themselves as a “European mutt”, specifically, I’ve heard this after I stated that I was of mixed race. Somehow it’s always rubbed me the wrong way, like they were trying to make me think we had something in common because I, an Asian and American person, should then relate better to them, a white American, when knowing that their grandfather was Irish, but their great-grandmother was French. And then also that they were somehow trying to get in on the mixed-race bandwagon. And what really rubs me wrong is that notion that I’m a sort of bandwagon for white people to hop on if they like, a fashionable hapa accessory whom they can relate to, because they’re a “mutt” too.
Thanks, but I’m not a mutt. And I’m also not a fashion statement.
Posted 03 Jun 2007 at 12:02 pm ¶
Luke wrote:
sewere: thanks! i took a bit of a break but now I just try and guest-blog here and there.
gabby: i’m glad you brought that up. It’s very much a part of the White privilege backlash in that since some groups take issue with the any sort of community/discussion/group concerning mixed race (or any poc community) issues because it’s perceived as divisive…”what’s the point of a mixed student group? WE’RE ALL MIXED, DUH” I remember hearing from time to time :/
Posted 04 Jun 2007 at 1:57 am ¶
Mogs wrote:
gabby, i think maybe you sometimes misunderstand what people mean when they say they are a “Euroamerican mutt”. when people ask me where my ancestors came from, i tell them i’m an american mutt because all my ancestors came across the Atlantic too long ago for anyone to remember or care the million and one European countries they originated in. to me and others i know, the word mutt has no derogatory or ethnic connotation… it just means you don’t have any nationality other than American.
Posted 12 Jun 2007 at 10:05 pm ¶
blaster wrote:
Just came across this blog post because I was looking for a discussion of the use of the term ‘mutt’ for people and how screwed up (I think) it is. I am mixed Black and Middle Eastern and I wince every time I hear the word mutt, ESPECIALLY when it’s applied to people.
I know Mogs feels fine to identify as a Euro-american mutt, but I am very strongly offended by any language that compares people of mixed race or ethnicity (and note that, often, the people I hear identify themselves as a ‘mutt’ have, almost always, proceeded to identify their background and identity as various white groups) to dogs.
People often ask about my father’s ethnicity (by way of asking about my last name) and then proceed to try to deduce what my mother’s ethnicity is in some usually very unslick way. Once a woman (a close family member to my then-girlfriend) asked me if my father was “full bred” – I simply cannot understand why white people feel like it is okay to use words so tightly linked with dog breeding to describe people of color.
All of these “mixed” (white and white) people who are going around calling themselves “mutts” really simply don’t understand what it’s like to be dehumanized because of their racial and ethnic backgrounds, so I’m not really surprised that they don’t understand why calling someone, even themselves, a “mutt” is racist and offensive.
Posted 23 Mar 2008 at 10:58 am ¶
tamu wrote:
Just to add to the comments you made on bone marrow:
People of mixed ethnic heritage are at risk when looking for an unrelated bone marrow donor. You are correct, a person can match for someone who is not of the same or similar ethnic background, but this is <a href=”http://www.healemru.com/2008/03/ethnicity-and-bone-marrow-donation.php”highly unlikely. That being said, it happened recently.
People who are interested in recruitment of bone marrow donors of mixed ethnic heritage in the United States, should check out MatchMaker. There is a severe shortage of people who have a higher likelihood of matching.
Posted 11 May 2008 at 1:12 am ¶
Will wrote:
Today Obama called himself a Mutt at his first press conference. Personally as a bi-racial American I took great offense to that term as ignorant people often use it as a term to dehumanize others. I immediately had flashbacks to grade school when a particularly racist child (I blame the parents) would use this and other words quite often to describe me. I understand if this was a gaff but this seemed like he particularly chose the word in his answer to reporters. Reading this article made me understand that although people might do this casually with friends, it was failure in judgement of our future President to use this description during a press conference. Why do we have
Posted 08 Nov 2008 at 8:23 am ¶