interracial relationship ting

[blugiant]

de laws banninn interracial marriges were passed by oyinbo men fe prevent oyinbo oomen fram marryinn blakk men ann avinn mixxed race yuths woo were cansidar mzungu unda de laws. willie lynch chatt bout oww oyinbo brukk blakk oomen nature ann made de dependant pon oyinbo men ann more important set upp as teachers woo teached blakk yuths fe bow to oyinbo racism.


ar sellouts ann mzungu oomen relationship bettar dan oyinbo men ann mzungu playting ting given da histaree aff racism?

[Tropicana]

Heck no!

BTW, only octoroons were considered to be legally White.

[Suesumba]

ar sellouts ann mzungu oomen relationship bettar dan oyinbo men ann mzungu playting ting given da histaree aff racism?

sellouts ann mzungu oomen=black men/white women?
oyinbo men ann mzungu playting = white men/black women?

what's the diff?

[Suesumba]

... and yes i have a lot of time on my hands.

[blugiant]

Heck no!

BTW, only octoroons were considered to be legally White.

natt troo butt yuh see wear mii goinn

mzungu ooman can ave wan mixxed race yuths dat cood bee cansidared legalle mzungu ann free butt blakk oomen ann oyinbo men created house slaves

[Tropicana]

See my bolding:


Who is Black?

Not only does the one-drop rule apply to no other group than American blacks, but apparently the rule is unique in that it is found only in the United States and not in any other nation in the world. In fact, definitions of who is black vary quite sharply from country to country, and for this reason people in other countries often express consternation about our definition. James Baldwin relates a revealing incident that occurred in 1956 at the Conference of Negro-African Writers and Artists held in Paris. The head of the delegation of writers and artists from the United States was John Davis. The French chairperson introduced Davis and then asked him why he considered himself Negro, since he certainly did not look like one. Baldwin wrote, "He is a Negro, of course, from the remarkable legal point of view which obtains in the United States, but more importantly, as he tried to make clear to his interlocutor, he was a Negro by choice and by depth of involvement--by experience, in fact."

The phenomenon known as "passing as white" is difficult to explain in other countries or to foreign students. Typical questions are: "Shouldn't Americans say that a person who is passing as white is white, or nearly all white, and has previously been passing as black?" or "To be consistent, shouldn't you say that someone who is one-eighth white is passing as black?" or "Why is there so much concern, since the so-called blacks who pass take so little negroid ancestry with them?" Those who ask such questions need to realize that "passing" is much more a social phenomenon than a biological one, reflecting the nation's unique definition of what makes a person black. The concept of "passing" rests on the one-drop rule and on folk beliefs about race and miscegenation, not on biological or historical fact.
The black experience with passing as white in the United States contrasts with the experience of other ethnic minorities that have features that are clearly non-caucasoid. The concept of passing applies only to blacks--consistent with the nation's unique definition of the group. A person who is one-fourth or less American Indian or Korean or Filipino is not regarded as passing if he or she intermarries and joins fully the life of the dominant community, so the minority ancestry need not be hidden. It is often suggested that the key reason for this is that the physical differences between these other groups and whites are less pronounced than the physical differences between African blacks and whites, and therefore are less threatening to whites.However, keep in mind that the one-drop rule and anxiety about passing originated during slavery and later received powerful reinforcement under the Jim Crow system.
For the physically visible groups other than blacks, miscegenation promotes assimilation, despite barriers of prejudice and discrimination during two or more generations of racial mixing. As noted above, when ancestry in one of these racial minority groups does not exceed one-fourth, a person is not defined solely as a member of that group. Masses of white European immigrants have climbed the class ladder not only through education but also with the help of close personal relationships in the dominant community, intermarriage, and ultimately full cultural and social assimilation. Young people tend to marry people they meet in the same informal social circles. For visibly non-caucasoid minorities other than blacks in the United States, this entire route to full assimilation is slow but possible.
For all persons of any known black lineage, however, assimilation is blocked and is not promoted by miscegenation. Barriers to full opportunity and participation for blacks are still formidable, and a fractionally black person cannot escape these obstacles without passing as white and cutting off all ties to the black family and community.

This applies whether the male or female is the Black parent so you are talking nonsense I suspect in order to justify White Female/Black Male unions. I am surprised at you.

The pain of this separation, and condemnation by the black family and community, are major reasons why many or most of those who could pass as white choose not to. Loss of security within the minority community, and fear and distrust of the white world are also factors.

It should now be apparent that the definition of a black person as one with any trace at all of black African ancestry is inextricably woven into the history of the United States. It incorporates beliefs once used to justify slavery and later used to buttress the castelike Jim Crow system of segregation. Developed in the South, the definition of "Negro" (now black) spread and became the nation's social and legal definition. Because blacks are defined according to the one-drop rule, they are a socially constructed category in which there is wide variation in racial traits and therefore not a race group in the scientific sense. However, because that category has a definite status position in the society it has become a self-conscious social group with an ethnic identity.
The one-drop rule has long been taken for granted throughout the United States by whites and blacks alike, and the federal courts have taken "judicial notice" of it as being a matter of common knowledge. State courts have generally upheld the one-drop rule, but some have limited the definition to one thirty-second or one-sixteenth or one-eighth black ancestry, or made other limited exceptions for persons with both Indian and black ancestry. Most Americans seem unaware that this definition of blacks is extremely unusual in other countries, perhaps even unique to the United States, and that Americans define no other minority group in a similar way.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html

[blugiant]

sellouts ann mzungu oomen=black men/white women?
oyinbo men ann mzungu playting = white men/black women?

what's the diff?

laws against miscegenation were passed fe prevent de sellout ann mzungo oomen combination. oyinbo man wanted fe marry wan mixxed race blakk oomen ann dem ended miscegenation. kkk was farmed cah dem apposed sellout widd oyinbo oomen even dough manee aff dem kkk were legallee allowed to rape blkk oomen. itt created a racist societee wear oyinbo men ann mzungu playtings ar more accepted ann dear iss less stigma attached to dat interracial groupinn

[Tropicana]

This is about some of Thomas Jefferson's descendants.

THE LIFE OF ROBERT SCOTT

Navigating the Color Line

The life of Robert Scott, Betty Hemings's great-grandson, spanned almost an entire century during which the inexorable forces of law worked hand in hand with the more ambiguous dynamics of society to fix assumptions about race. When, in 1888, Robert Scott talked of attending a white school in Charlottesville in his boyhood, he noted that "the prejudice between the races was not so strong then as now, and he had never heard of any objection being made to the presence of the colored pupils in his school." According to a Charlottesville physician, the Scotts were allowed to vote, "the courts deciding they were nearer white than negro," and a prominent attorney recalled that Jefferson's grandson Thomas Jefferson Randolph had testified that the Scotts "were not Negroes."
Until 1910, Virginia law declared that a free person with more than three-quarters white heritage was "not a Negro." Three of the grandparents of Robert and James Scott were white and the fourth, Mary Hemings Bell, was of mixed heritage (her grandson described her as an "octoroon"). Thus, the Scott brothers were legally white. In 1888, Orra Langhorne said to Robert Scott: "You have scarcely any African blood in your veins." "None, I may almost say none," he replied, "for my mother was almost white; we considered ourselves white people." She noted that the Scotts' appearance and manners had brought them special treatment; at the Springs, for instance, they were given private rooms and, after the paying guests had left, were waited on in the dining room. Yet, while they were legally "not Negroes," the Scotts were not treated as white people. They were still "socially black," as a judge proclaimed in the case mentioned below.

The middle ground was hard to maintain in the postbellum Albemarle County world, with fourteen thousand freedmen flooding the territory formerly claimed by the several hundred free blacks. By the 1890s Mary Hemings and any connection to slaves at Monticello were erased from the public versions of the Scott family history; in some accounts she has even become an Indian. In 1892, the death of James Scott provoked a lawsuit that hinged on this issue of racial identity and brought an end to the Hemings family's residence on Main Street. Because he had never legally married, James Scott's daughter had to prove her father was not white in order to claim her portion of the Bell-Scott legacy. Her mother had been enslaved and her inheritance depended on the 1866 act legitimizing marriages of blacks prior to the Civil War. Robert Scott opposed his niece by contending that he and his brother were white, and lost both his case and his home.

The final assessment of Robert Scott's position in society followed the account of his sudden death, at age ninety-six, walking down Ridge Street: "While regarded as a colored man, Robert Scott was not a negro. He claimed a large degree of Indian blood in his veins, and his every lineament and his gigantic stature went far to prove his claim. He was a man of excellent principles, courteous as a king, gentle in manner, and even in the anti-bellum days, he and his brothers were regarded more as the comrades of the people they served than as menials doing their bidding."

http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/navigating-color-line

[blugiant]

Tropi merikka laws iss based pon preeceedents ann wan aff de furst signifeecant merikkan (doan memba iff imm wass de furst) fe chatt bout color as a race wass thomas jefferson. dem cawl jefferson de furst negro president ann itt natt cah imm respected blakk. itt was cah imm designed de systen ann oww fe count slave fe benefit ann strenghten slave holders rites. mii find itt intarestinn dat a racist luv mzungu playting ehem


How the Law Decided if You Were Black or White: The Early 1800s

Essays on the Color Line and the One-Drop Rule


In February of 1815, two young friends of John Adams traveled to Virginia, visited Monticello, and met Thomas Jefferson. Their names were George Ticknor and Francis Gray. Gray had never known slavery as an adult (which had ended 32 years earlier in his state of Massachusetts). He was fascinated that many of Jefferson’s slaves looked European. He asked the former president how Virginians went about determining whether someone was Black or White (in the color-line sense), and how this determination related to slavery.1 On March 4, 1815, Jefferson wrote a chatty 4-page letter in reply.2 He explained that slavery and endogamous group membership were unrelated in Virginia law. On the one hand, mulattos were legally Black and the law defined “mulatto” as anyone with one or more “negro” grandparents. Jefferson thereupon filled two pages with mathematical equations to show that anyone with less that 1/4 African admixture was legally White.3 On the other hand, slavery passed through the mother with no diminution regardless of ancestry, and had nothing to do with the color line. Only upon emancipation would a former slave’s membership in either of America’s endogamous groups become an issue. And so, Jefferson explained, specifically referring to one of his European-looking slaves, “if emancipated, he becomes a free white man [emphasis Jefferson’s], and a citizen of the United States to all intents and purposes.”4

Who was Jefferson talking about? The most European-looking slave in his household at the time was his own son: fair-complexioned, freckled, red-haired Eston Hemings.5 Eston had, at most, 1/8 African genetic admixture. Eston’s mother, Sally Hemings, was Jefferson’s sister-in-law. She was his deceased wife’s half-sister. She was the daughter of Jefferson’s father-in-law, John Wayles, whose antecedents were all of one hundred percent European admixture, as far as anyone knows. Sally’s mother, Betty Hemings, was the daughter of a Welsh sea captain named Hemings and an African woman.6 Since Sally had one “negro” grandparent, she would have been legally Black even if manumitted. But since her son Eston had only 1/8 African ancestry, Jefferson’s prediction most likely applied to him.

http://essays.backintyme.com/item/7

[Tropicana]

That is precisely what I said and you contradicted my statement that octoroon were legally White. Of course this only applied if they were manumitted.

[blugiant]

That is precisely what I said and you contradicted my statement that octoroon were legally White. Of course this only applied if they were manumitted.

y mii disagree widd yuh statement dat octoroon were cansidared legallee oyinbo iff dem were free iss jefferson son woo wass ann octoroon butt imm didd natt look oyinbo so dem neva cansidared imm legallee oyinbo aftar imm wass manumitted.

deer were three legal rules used to determined iff you were oyinbo: oww yu look, blood fraction ann association. so a free octoroon might natt bee legallee cansidared oyinbo.

read de rest aff de artikkle pon de link

[blugiant]

The Color Line Became Legally Important Around 1800

The first appealed court case on record where a person’s endogamous group membership was an issue was decided in 1802. This seems strange. The endogamous color line had been in force since 1691, and penalties for intermarriage became increasingly severe in the decades immediately thereafter. Nevertheless, for over a century no appealed case was recorded where a court had to decide on which side of the color line someone belonged. Some have suggested that this is because virtually all Americans in this period were visibly of either northern European or African descent; that few ambiguous-looking people of dual heritage had yet emerged. But this explanation seems unlikely. As explained elsewhere, it takes only three generations of intermarriage—under 75 years—to produce European-looking adults with as much as 25 percent African admixture.24 A more likely explanation is that endogamous group membership per se (as opposed to slavery) had few legal ramifications under British colonial law. Laws restricting the rights of free Black citizens (other than laws forbidding their marrying Whites) seem to be a post-Revolutionary invention. Whatever the reason for the hiatus, the first court case where endogamous group membership was an issue was also the first case that overturned the burden-of-proof precedent.

The change in burden of proof for slavery arose in 1802 North Carolina. A twelve-year-old girl surnamed Gobu claimed to have found an abandoned eight-day-old male infant lying in a barn. The baby had straight hair and an “olive color” (yellowish) skin tone. The girl took the baby home and raised him as her slave. Upon reaching maturity, the young man sued for his freedom. He argued, in Gobu v. Gobu, 1802 North Carolina, that Ms. Gobu lacked evidence proving his legal slave status.25 Her lawyer argued that, because it was clear that the plaintiff was not of pure European ancestry, the burden of proof should rest upon him, not upon his alleged owner. The judge agreed with this altered burden of proof.

I acquiesce in the rule laid down by the defendant’s counsel, with respect to the presumption of every black person being a slave. It is so, because the negroes originally brought to this country were slaves, and their descendants must continue slaves until manumitted by proper authority. If therefore a person of that description claims his freedom, he must establish his right to it by such evidence as will destroy the force of the presumption arising from his color.26

The judge thus overturned six centuries of Spanish law and established two new precedents that reverberated in U.S. courts from then on. First, he ruled that the burden of proof was not always upon the alleged slaveowner. Second, he ruled that the burden of proof depended on the alleged slave’s endogamous group membership (“the presumption of every black person being a slave”). Thenceforth, a Black person would be presumed a slave unless proven otherwise. A White person would be presumed free.

Interestingly, the Gobu v. Gobu judge then went on to free the young man, denying that the new burden of proof standard applied to him, thereby establishing a third precedent: a person of dual heritage did not necessarily fall on the Black side of the color line:

I am not aware that the doctrine of presuming against liberty has been urged in relation to persons of mixed blood, or to those of any color between the two extremes of black and white; and I do not think it reasonable that such a doctrine should receive the least countenance. Such persons may have descended from… a white parent in the maternal line or from mulatto parents originally free, in all which cases the offspring, following the condition of the mother, is entitled to freedom. Considering how many probabilities there are in favor of the liberty of these persons, they ought not to be deprived of it upon mere presumption, more especially as the right to hold them in slavery, if it exists, is in most instances, capable of being satisfactorily proved.27

And so, the Gobu v. Gobu ruling thus established that a person of mixed ancestry was not necessarily a member of the Black endogamous group for the purpose of determining onus probandi in a slavery case

Four years then passed before the issue arose again. The court in the second case confirmed the Gobu v. Gobu ruling and accepted case law was changed once and for all. That case was Hudgins v. Wrights, 1806 Virginia.28 Hanna Hudgins and her daughter sued for their freedom. They won in the lower court, on the ground that the alleged owner had not made a case. The lower court explicitly followed the old Spanish law of 1265, ruling that:

freedom is the birthright of every human being, which sentiment is strongly inculcated by the first article of our “political catechism,” the bill of rights… [and] that whenever one person claims to hold another in slavery, the onus probandi lies on the claimant.29

The five appeals judges in Hudgins v. Wrights unanimously voided the principle upon which this decision was based. They held, following Gobu v. Gobu, that the burden of proof did not always lie on the alleged slave owner:

Where white persons, or native American Indians, or their descendants in the maternal line, are claimed as slaves, the onus probandi lies on the claimant; but it is otherwise with respect to native Africans and their descendants, who have been and are now held as slaves.30

Also, as in Gobu v. Gobu, the appeals court freed the plaintiffs because, “the youngest of the appellees was perfectly white, and that there were gradual shades of difference in colour between the grand-mother, mother, and grand-daughter, (all of whom were before the court).” Three of the judges wrote a separate opinion stressing even more firmly that the burden of proof depended on an alleged slave’s endogamous group membership.31

Hudgins v. Wrights decisively confirmed the case law that slavery’s burden of proof depended on the color line. This principle was then followed regularly in U.S. courts thereafter. Subsequent courts, even outside Virginia, cited Hudgins v. Wrights as precedent.32 Hook v. Nanny Pagee and her Children, 1811 Virginia, ruled that a single mother and her children were presumed free because “clear and distinct perception” revealed them to be White.33 In Edwards v. M’Connel, 1813 Tennessee, a “deep yellow” family was ruled to be Black (hence, presumed slaves) despite being from Guadalupe.34 In Welborn v. Little, 1818 South Carolina, an indigent young apprentice was freed from an attempt to enslave him by the presumption of his freedom, based on his being a member of the White endogamous group by virtue of his appearance.35

Endogamous group membership soon became important in courts well beyond just those cases held to resolve slave status. Many states forbade Black witnesses from testifying in trials involving White litigants. Between 1794 and 1811, five cases hinged on whether a witness would thus be allowed to testify.36 And, of course, people continued to intermarry despite the law. One case in this period resolved on which side of the color line someone belonged in order to decide the validity of a marriage.37 Before long, dozens of laws were passed and precedents established that hinged upon upon whether you were Black or White. Which side of the color line you were on affected more than just your slave status, testimony, and marriage. It also determined: what school you could attend, whether you could inherit, whether you could vote, the taxes you paid, public transportation carrier liability for your escape, whether a racial epithet was slanderous, how you would be sentenced as a criminal, whether you could carry a gun, and dozens of other aspects of daily life.38

A century before Jefferson wrote his explanation, Governor Gooch had realized that preserving an endogamous color line, based on the notion that colonists of African descent were slaves and those of European descent were free, would depend upon preventing the birth of hybrids. He probably did not foresee just how hopeless this goal would turn out to be. As explained elsewhere, the steady rate of Black-to-White genetic leakage across the color line had produced, by the turn of the nineteenth century, many thousands of Americans who were of mixed Afro-European ancestry. Also, as explained elsewhere, less than a dozen superficial genes determine the physical features that Americas see as “racially” significant, and the non-European versions of those few genes are often replaced by the genetic recombination (meiosis) that takes place with each generation, thus erasing “racialized” features in mixed descendants. Finally, as explained elsewhere, Americans of about 15 percent African admixture or less are usually accepted as members of the White endogamous group. And those of roughly 35 percent African admixture or more are usually relegated to the Black side of the U.S. color line.39 This means that, while some Americans of mixed ancestry looked European and some looked African, many others looked ambiguously Mediterranean. How could law courts be expected to resolve to which side of the color line such people belonged?

http://essays.backintyme.com/item/7

[blugiant]

As Jefferson wrote, whether you were legally a slave had nothing to do with which side of the color line you were on. From the 1662 partus sequitur ventrem law until slavery’s end over two centuries later, the only factor that determined whether someone was legally born a slave was whether the mother was legally a slave at the time. No other factor entered the equation: not skin tone, not endogamous group membership, not ancestry, not region nor state, not anything but matrilineal descent ad infinitum and nothing more.14

The question was not trivial. Whether someone was slave or free had to be decided many times in the years between 1691 and 1800. Virginia alone imported about 45,000 African slaves between 1700 and 1750.15 This comes to about ten percent of all the slaves ever imported into British North America.16 Consequently, the number of Americans of African heritage exploded during this period. Members of the Black endogamous group went from 7 percent of Virginia’s population to 44 percent.17 Some of these individuals were recently imported slaves, and some were the children of slave mothers—also slaves under the law. But others had European mothers, and still others descended from African planters, shopkeepers, or indentured servants of the seventeenth century, from before the color line was invented.

diss mekk mii laff. oyinbo man wey wass inna interracial relationship widd a mzungu playting wrote a letter dat set de legal precedents aff oww to determine woo is a slave ann woo iss free to enslave mzungu playtings ann dem mixxed yuths. imm put inferior status pon mzungu playting mixxed race offsprings ann superior status pon de offspring aff oyinbo oomen

How did the courts decide who was legally a slave and who was free? They did it precisely as Jefferson had explained.

de legal preceedent mii chatt bout.

diss mekk mii laff. de joke iss dat mii still affendinn sum mzungu playting wen mii cawl dem mzungu playtings cah dem doan kno dem histaree

[blugiant]

... and yes i have a lot of time on my hands.

yuh kno sue yuh inspired diss tredd cah mii luv wen yuh xxplained de meaninn aff mzungu playting inn dat addar thread so mii decided fe further xxplain

Interestingly, the Gobu v. Gobu judge then went on to free the young man, denying that the new burden of proof standard applied to him, thereby establishing a third precedent: a person of dual heritage did not necessarily fall on the Black side of the color line:

I am not aware that the doctrine of presuming against liberty has been urged in relation to persons of mixed blood, or to those of any color between the two extremes of black and white; and I do not think it reasonable that such a doctrine should receive the least countenance. Such persons may have descended from… a white parent in the maternal line or from mulatto parents originally free, in all which cases the offspring, following the condition of the mother, is entitled to freedom. Considering how many probabilities there are in favor of the liberty of these persons, they ought not to be deprived of it upon mere presumption, more especially as the right to hold them in slavery, if it exists, is in most instances, capable of being satisfactorily proved.27

And so, the Gobu v. Gobu ruling thus established that a person of mixed ancestry was not necessarily a member of the Black endogamous group for the purpose of determining onus probandi in a slavery case.

yuh see y mii luv fe used de term mixxed race man ann y mii keep repeatinn imm nuh blakk. preffered status established by oyinbo maddar ann association widd oyinbo familee membahs.

[Tropicana]

y mii disagree widd yuh statement dat octoroon were cansidared legallee oyinbo iff dem were free iss jefferson son woo wass ann octoroon butt imm didd natt look oyinbo so dem neva cansidared imm legallee oyinbo aftar imm wass manumitted.

deer were three legal rules used to determined iff you were oyinbo: oww yu look, blood fraction ann association. so a free octoroon might natt bee legallee cansidared oyinbo.

read de rest aff de artikkle pon de link

I am dealing with law. On the books an octoroon who was free was considered to be legally white. Of course, law will always have exceptions and nuances.