Babies, Babies, Babies...

Everyone I know is having children. FOUR of my close friends are having babies and they are ALL mixed. Some are black and mexican, some are black and white, and others are a hodgepodge of many races. It will be so interesting to see what the world looks like in another 50 years... maybe we'll do away with all the silly racial distinctions and end all the racism in the world. Of course, classism (is that a word?) will take its place, but at least we can stop judging people based on the color of their skin....

The Dilemma of Dating/Clash of Cultures

So when bi-racial people meet new people, hang out and eventually date--there is the inevitable culture clash with the significant others. Unless you're dating a mixed person (who's background is exactly like yours), you can't really explain what growing up in a mixed household is like. Sure, they can come visit for holidays or spend time getting to know your siblings, but the phenomenon of culture combination can be a mystery.

Also, you may have strange gaps in your cultural education that can frighten them. I'll use food as the metaphor here. For me, I prefer pumpkin pie to sweet potato pie (although I love both)! To most black people, this is an abomination, aggrandized holiday blasphemy. To most white people, this is not an issue. Then again, I (when I ate dairy) made a slamming baked macaroni and cheese that seems to only confuse white people (until they taste it!).

The key here is to seek people in your life who can embrace these variations instead of judge them. My mother had fish the other night and my father ate bratwurst. Even after 34 years, they still appreciate their individual tastes without judgment. I wish that for all of us.

More of us on TV

I wonder if "mixed is the new black" will trickle down to TV more and more. I see people on shows like Bones and Fringe who are not necessarily household names, but are clearly mixed actors who are doing well in non-stereotypical roles. They are smart, interesting and even sometimes have love interests! I find this promising...

Is B-Racial the New Black?

Our new president is bi-racial. We're bi-racial (been holding it down for years) and every time I go to the store I see a little blondish brown curly haired kid straight out of a Gap ad running down the aisle. So, have we broken down the barriers or is it just cool to have a bi-racial child? Not sure. Celebrities love to adopt African children, but aren't quite on the bandwagon with mating with Africans. :-) Except Heidi Klum and David Bowie, of course.

I also wonder how this will change the "Black" cultural identity over time. Will it "whiten" our race? Can we even say "our" race?! Either way, how will this effect us since the overwhelming majority of bi-racial children are being raised by single white women? In 20 years, will there be a massively confused race of curly haired young adults who aren't sure whether to wear their hair ashy or flat iron it? Who don't know how to cook greens but inherently have rhythm? Who love hip hop but aren't sure where it came from?

I'm full of questions today.

Have the Expectations Changed?

Are things really different? Are we, as black people, mixed people, etc.--expected to act differently? Do white people look at black people differently now that we have a black president? I just wonder because it seems like we're in the middle of "making" history -- where will we be in 50 years? It's exciting but also a little daunting. As a person of mixed race, I think I also feel responsible to be a beacon of success more so now than ever. Could be worse.

The Issue of Children

I was always taught by my parents that I had "the best of the both worlds" when it came to my racial background. But I often wonder how other bi-racial families deal with this issue. Especially for single parents who only represent one side of the racial spectrum - how do you teach your mixed child (or "mutt" as President Obama says - LOL) about a racial heritage of which you know only secondhand information? I had (have) a white and black parent in my life, so I am constantly exposed to two divergent cultures. But I suppose we're so inundated with white culture that it's really the kids without access to their black heritage that suffer the most. But how does a white parent handle this on his/her own? Take the kids to the African-American history museum? That is not a substitute for soul food, beauty shops, flea markets, the "hood," rap concerts, Sade concerts, Prince concerts, Jack and Jill, cotillions, NAACP meetings (I'm spanning the entire Black Socio-economic spectrum here)....all things considered "black." Can black culture be absorbed through the television or are these biracial children bound to simply miss out?

Real Change

Not only did Barack (a bi-racial American) get elected this week, but so did my mother, Phyllis Thede. She is now the State House Representative for Iowa District 81. What a special time. I feel like I can't stop smiling. Even now, as I fight off a bad flu, I can't help but think that my whole life is changing and that our world will never be the same. Yes, I have had the kool-aid, and it tastes delicious. :-)

Hair We Go Again

One thing I always remember (or am reminded of constantly) is how people (mostly of a fairer skin tone) want to TOUCH your hair when you're mixed. The bigger and curlier, the more they want to touch it. And for me, when I wear my hair curly, people are always shocked at how "soft" it is. WTF? What did you expect it to feel like, a Brillo pad? Now, I know this isn't particular to us. Black people with dreads and afros also experience this phenomenon. But is it rude? Or are people opening up their cultural horizons by reaching out to touch your hair? Breaking down racial barriers or exploring exotic fantasies?
For me, I let them touch and use the opportunity to educate them on mixed/black hair. If I can suspend my ego enough to help someone else break down their stereotypes, maybe I can make this world a better place. One hair pat at a time.

Race Against the Clock

I know most of my posts recently have been in relation to Barack Obama, but I can't stop thinking about this campaign. For all us mixies, this is groundbreaking. For the first time, a prominent half-black, half-white person will be in the international spotlight. I'm not sure that Colin Powell is mixed, I think he's just light:-).

I especially think it's great because now you hear people publicly (just heard it on CNN) talking about him being just as much white as he is black. This seems to baffle white commentators, who quickly move on after this point has been made. They don't seem to even want to confront the fact that Barack could be seen as white at all.

The discussion about race seems to always come back to the point that "97 percent of black people are voting for Barack" (even though they conveniently forget to mention that 92 percent of black people voted for Kerry and Gore) and that they are just doing this because he's black.

What about the white people who are voting for Barack because he's half white? There have to be a large number of white people who feel more comfortable with him because he's not "all black," because he's so "articulate" and because "he's not like the rest of them."

I think racism is a circle, not a line. In this election, I think it will all balance out on both sides of the fence.

My Two Cents

Of course the government created AIDS and black and brown and occasionally white inner-city children will NEVER have the same opportunities as those children (of whatever race) who live in areas with higher property and local taxes.

As Barack gets closer and closer to being our next president, it's interesting to me how much pressure I'm beginning to realize he'll have to represent his "blackness." As a mixed person, this is interesting to me because it seems people want you to be black when they want you to be but not when they don't.

For instance, people want Barack to stay away from associating with "extreme" black ministers, but they will want him to be black enough to take care of black children/adults in schools, in the foster care system and in prisons. Is this accurate or just our way of making him just "white" enough to "pass?" Inevitably, he will be identified as black, but will we even question his blackness at the first sign of him being a less-than-militant president? Will black people call him a sellout and hate on him once he's in office or will they remember the audacity of hope?

Black People and Their Conspiracy Theories -- Was AIDS Created by Scientists?

There are multiple sides of every story, and the story of the origin of AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) is no exception. Despite differing opinions, the consensus is that AIDS became a known epidemic in the United States around the late 1970’s. Several theories pinpoint the mutation of a form of primate virus that “jumped species” to humans in Africa sometime in the 1930’s. Over the course of the next forty to fifty years, versions of the virus would be seen in humans around the world. People were diagnosed with ailments now known as hallmark “symptoms” of the AIDS virus like Pneumocystis Carinii Pneumonia (PCP) and Kaposi’s Sarcoma (KS). Changing its name, linking it to different sources, and blaming it on various groups, scientists and citizens alike questioned the truth about what would later become a deadly epidemic.
It was initially considered by scientists and the general public as a disease that only affected gay men and was commonly referred to as the “gay plague.” In the 1980’s, as the first cases of AIDS or HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), the virus that causes AIDS, were reported in non-gay non-males, Americans were forced to accept that this killer did not discriminate. When Americans could relegate the disease to being the result of reckless behavior and lifestyle choices, it was easier to deal with. When the “them” became “us” too, the frightening reality sunk in; AIDS could and had begun to affect “regular people.” Moms and teachers and baseball-playing children were no longer safe by default of the fact that they did not use intravenous drugs or engage in homosexual intercourse. No longer was AIDS the disease of the deviant; it had moved in next door to the average American citizen with no plan of moving out.
Jonathan Mann, the former leader of the World Health Organization’s AIDS advocacy program, summarizes the impact of AIDS on America and the consequences of the country’s passive response to the disease:
The dominant feature of this first period was silence, for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was unknown and transmission was not accompanied by signs or symptoms salient enough to be noticed. While rare, sporadic case reports of AIDS and sero-archaeological studies have documented human infections with HIV prior to 1970, available data suggest that the current pandemic started in the mid- to late 1970s. By 1980, HIV had spread to at least five continents (North America, South America, Europe, Africa and Australia). During this period of silence, spread was unchecked by awareness or any preventive action and approximately 100,000-300,000 persons may have been infected. (Mann)
It was clear that this disease presented a significant danger to people globally. While now there is a general understanding of what AIDS is and when it started, questions of whom, how, and why still loom.
Research on the origin of AIDS identifies two basic theories. As mentioned above, one theory is that the virus that causes AIDS was transmitted to a human by a monkey in West Africa. The other theory, while sharing the same basic premise, is more conspiratorial in nature, and it identifies two different groups as the victims. A significant number of Americans believe that AIDS, or the virus that causes AIDS, is manmade. While some believe that the disease was formulated to annihilate the gay community, others believe the disease was crafted as an act of genocide targeted at Blacks. Either way, those who believe that the disease was created in a scientific lab, purport that the American government created it to execute a brutal population control strategy.
Alan Cantwell, M.D. has written a number of books and articles on the origin of AIDS in the United States including “Debunking Out-of-Africa Origin of AIDS; The Greatest Conspiracy Story Ever Told.” Cantwell claims that the AIDS virus was unleashed on the gay community through bogus vaccine programs. This concept is the foundation of the manmade theory; it points the finger at the government for starting this public health nightmare from which America has yet to awaken. Cantwell addresses the theory that the disease was transferred from a monkey to a human by stating that there is no scientific data which supports the “green monkey” theory. Cantwell claims that this theory was “doomed from the start” and born out of the scientists’ desire to assign blame for AIDS to Africa. The anti-theory of the “green monkey” is sound in that, by its very nature, it discredits the sinister behaviors of a primary-colored monkey. The average person has a difficult time believing a theory featuring a mythical creature as the protagonist. This claim is convincing by default. Because the finger is pointed at Africa as the birthplace of AIDS, little of this “green monkey” theory is questioned. This explains why there is little scientific data available to support the theory; apparently, little data is needed to convince people of this claim. Cantwell’s claim that scientists were trying to focus the attacks on Africa versus the United States, or more specifically, New York City is also sound because it is believable. Again, the unknown elements of Africa make it an easy target.
The thing about conspiracy theory is that, more times than not, someone who believes one conspiracy theory is likely to believe others. Cantwell’s claims of foul play by the United States government would earn respect in today’s social climate. Americans are disappointed with the science and health industries for profiting from people’s pain, and for shirking their responsibilities as service providers. They are more likely to believe that the buck was passed. The support for these claims exists in the article’s appeal to the emotions of the average American reader. Most people could easily accept the idea that the government is capable of behaving dishonestly and taking advantage of citizens to further an agenda.
Cantwell also claims that the link between American scientific experimentation and the epidemic nature of AIDS is undeniable. He writes that “there is no doubt that the epidemic started a decade after scientists began ‘adapting’ massive numbers of cancer-causing and immunosuppressive animal viruses and transferring them between various animal species in an attempt to experimentally produce cancer in the laboratory.” Cantwell describes the growing interest in these lab-crafted viruses in the scientific community and notes that this work was well known. Citing a Congressional testimony by Donald A. MacArthur in 1969, and the cautioning words of the Danish pathologist J. Clemmesen, Cantwell continues to paint a picture which supports his claim of the role the government in the origination and proliferation of AIDS in America.
In an article published by The New York Times in 1992, the validity of the conspiracy theory is questioned. The interesting thing about the author’s approach to the anti-conspiracy is that the attacks are veiled in satire and mockery. The first sentence is an example of the use of language to express the author’s position on the theory that AIDS was manmade: “Bizarre as it may seem to most people, many black Americans believe that AIDS… [is] part of a conspiracy to wipe out the black race.”(“The AIDS ‘Plot’ Against Blacks”.) While it only takes reading the first few paragraphs to grasp the author’s contempt for conspiracy theories, there is no actual information refuting the conspiracy claims. Instead, the argument migrates to the impact of the conspiracy theories on the treatment of AIDS patients in the Black community. Referred to as “paranoia”, the theory that AIDS was constructed by United States scientists to control the Black population is viewed as one of, if not the biggest, reasons that the disease is spreading so rapidly and killing so many people. The New York Times editorial uses incendiary words like “paranoid” and “bizarre” to infer that conspiracy believers are misguided and to invalidate the conspiracy claims. The article provides little in the way of actual supporting data, but plays on the logical thinking of its readers. By using language to color the opposing view as irrational or crazy, the author is appealing to the reader’s own struggle with reason and emotion. The conflict manifests itself in the gap between the two. Does the reader believe the conspiracy theory because they believe it possible that the United Stated government could commit such acts? Or, does the reader discount the theories as the constructs of the paranoid and illogical rants of victims looking to assign blame?
It is also interesting that, of all of the sources accessed, none of the anti-conspiracy theory viewpoints were accompanied or supported by real data exonerating the United States government from these claims of malfeasance. It is wise and necessary to move past the past and focus on current needs; however, the public deserves to know if, similar to the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, the government is capable of and willing to experiment with biowarfare on domestic territory. Describing a campaign launched by the New York State Health Department to address the prevention and treatment of HIV and AIDS, the author of the New York Times editorial seems equally frustrated by the government’s unwillingness to refute the claims of impropriety: “[The campaign] refuses to counteract the paranoia about AIDS as genocide, saying only that no matter how AIDS got started, there are ways to stop it.”
While Cantwell uses relevant information to support his claims, it is evident that his belief in the conspiracy is unshakeable. Fortunately for him, he cites studies and provides information that the average person cannot contest, because they have not researched the topic the way he has. It could be said that his argument wins because the task of fact-checking and substantiating his claims is too daunting. Again, AIDS is a topic that evokes a strong emotional reaction. The success of Cantwell’s claims depends on the sensitivity of the AIDS victim sympathizer and the suspicion of the average frustrated American.
Whether Cantwell’s claims are believable or not, he makes solid points that inspire further investigation. He also strikes a chord when he asks if it is “conspiracy theory to question…” the origins of the disease. It is easy for a person to dismiss conspiracy theories as invalid, paranoid quackery. The real burden falls on those who believe the theory; they must shine the spotlight on the truth giving the naysayers no choice but to accept the theories as fact.
The theory that AIDS was created by man is easier to understand and, unfortunately, easier to believe. Throughout history, there have been examples of the government’s misuse and abuse of people for strategic reasons. From the Tuskegee Syphilis Study to the use of unsuspecting prisoners as guinea pigs in medical research, the government has proven that it is capable of such acts in the name of science. Based solely on the information available, there are no solid arguments to refute the conspiracy theories. The common practice has been to distract or deflect hoping that the question will be forgotten. Nonetheless, for all of his statistics and data points, Cantwell was only partially convincing, in part because his texts read like frustrated rants. This makes it difficult to consider him an authority on the subject.
It is easy for the government to take the high road and focus its efforts on finding the solution versus dwelling on decades past. By the same token, the government owes it to its constituents to take responsibility for it actions. Cantwell presents an impassioned and somewhat convincing argument for the theory of manmade AIDS, while The New York Times editorial does little to defend the government’s participation. While taking that high road seems like the thing noble thing to do, the burden is on the American government to fight back against the conspiracies and dispel the rumors which continue to simmer just below the surface.

The Resegregation of American Schools

Juan Williams is right – Brown v. Board if Ed. played an instrumental role in the evolution of race relations in American culture. After all of that hard work, the question is why public schools are even more segregated now than they were thirty years ago. The answer is that the combination of the free market, Darwinism, government inefficiencies, and teachers unions has worked to undo the efforts of Brown and its supporters.
If the true purpose of the 1954 decision was to yield equality and diversity in all fundamental aspects of American culture then, even with the rise in segregation, the mission was accomplished.
The reality is that the public school systems are a disaster. My husband and I are dealing with this issue currently. We live in a charming urban neighborhood with a lot of potential. While we love our house and location, we would sooner mortgage our future than send them to the neighborhood public schools. I speak vehemently against my three-year-old entering kindergarten at Conley Hills Elementary because, aside from it horrible statistics and scores, it is under-maintained and miserable looking. Although diverse, my urban neighborhood is predominantly Black, lower income, and apparently invisible to local, State, and Federal governments.
We have several schools in close proximity, but the middle and upper class families are shipping their kids off to inconveniently located private schools. The fact that we now have choices, Black and White families alike, is why the public schools are segregated. The private schools (and some of the public schools in affluent neighborhoods) are competing to fill their chairs with paying students. Their facilities and amenities are better, their teachers are better, and their overall offerings are better. Why, aside from the eighteen thousand dollar price tag, would any parent who loves their child send them to the neighborhood kiddie prisons?
The “fittest”, or those people who seek out the better options, are rising to the top and leaving the public schools and their under-served students in the dust.
The governments have decimated public schools with their politics and bureaucracy. The unions have consistently fought for the rights of an undeserving class of underachieving teachers. The teachers are not being held accountable for the performance of their students, and the fast food restaurants and telemarketing companies have applicants lined up around the block. Of course, I am overgeneralizing. My comments are not reflective of the entire teacher population. Unfortunately, my disdain is appropriately pointed at the majority.
In the end, Americans don’t have to settle because we choice. As a result, those people who seek out the opportunities for a better life find that the urban public school system is insufficient. Now, the segregation is not just along color lines, but economic classes as well. Middle and upper class people of all races are making better choices, while lower-income families continue to accept what they get for free.

Dilemma Not-So-Much-For-Me

It's funny -- I've never seen it as a dilemma. Mostly because a dilemma connotes the existence of equal opportunity and access to both sides. If I had ever had an opportunity to live as a white person, maybe I would have struggled with the issue. When I walk down the street or meet new people or ride in hot-air balloons, I am seen as a Black street-walker, people-meeter, or balloon rider. No one gives me the opportunity to be White, so how do I know what I'm missing.

So, my choice of the word opportunity is what interests me. Do you think White people talk about not having the opportunity to experience life as a Black person? Why would they? Are there support groups for white Running Backs, Gospel Singers, and Barbers whose meetings focus on teaching them how to cope with how unfair it is that they weren't born Black.

Funny segue...

Chick Fil-A has a billboard on the Connector (ATL) that reads "Vote for the [Candidate] that eats more chikin." I chuckled all the way to work!

The Obama Dilemma

So Obama has a white mother and a black (kenyan) father. He's seen as black. We both have black mothers and white fathers. We are both considered black. One drop in this country makes you black. It's always been that way and it seems to be the standard of racial categorization across the board.

But what if I wanted to categorize myself as white? My mother has white people in her family tree as well, so I'm more white than I am black by racial percentage count. Aesthetically, more melanin appears more dominant than less, which makes sense why being considered black (even for the lightest of us) makes sense. Oh, that and those few hundred years of slavery and the abhorance of the black race led to the necessity to identify black people as such.... But I digress.

If I decided to call myself white, I think people would be angry. Both black and white people alike. Black people would call me an "Uncle Tom" (Which, for the record, is incorrect, "Sambo" would be a more accurate term for "sellout") and white people wouldn't accept me as one of their own either. But is there an advatange to this? How do you enjoy the "white side" of your heritage if you aren't allowed to acknowledge it by society?

I suppose the answer is a personal one. You have to find out information about all sides of your family on your own and embrace the cultures for yourself. If you leave it to society, you'll miss out on an important half!

Is there a difference among us?

Some people believe that having a white mother and a black father vs. having a black mother and white father can make a big difference in your upbringing and sense of identity. Both of us are the products of a black mother/white father relationship, so I think we agree that that combination is better :-). However, does it really make a difference?

I have two sisters, one younger and one older. We were all born from the parents and yet we are all very different. How each of us identifies with our "blackness" is definitely different, to be sure. Yet every time I meet a new person or get to know more about an old friend with a white mother and black father, I sense even bigger differences than in my family. These men and women seem to have had more of an identity struggle, particularly in adolesence. I don't know if there is any scientfic proof for this, but it's the gut feeling I always return to in my reactions.

Now, I'm not really saying that one is better than the other. However, I do believe that there is something to be said for a child who will inevitably be identified for life as "black" who is raised solely by a person who is white. Can the white parent do the same job? I think the answer is YES, but it's all about education. If you're a white parent, you're going to have to educate yourself as much as possible about black children, because your offspring will be seen as BLACK -- not mixed (most of the time) or even white -- but BLACK. The bigger onus lies with the parent who is not the same race, but it is also with the parent of the other color to allow the child to embrace both of his or her cultures. It's a complicated responsbility, but I think it's vital in producing self-confident, identified and strong men and women.

Hair Drama

I say, "Thank goodness for Jungle Fever!" When we were children the array of multiracial hair care products just didn't exist. It's a new day and now for a small fortune or a lot of research into homemade alternatives, you too (I'm speaking to the ashy-headed mixie in all of us), can have dope hair.

I think Rob touched on this...the main issue is the mom's relationship to her childrens' hair. Even my hair will "dread up" if I don't brush it for a week...maybe two...aw hell, it would take a good month to dread. I won't isolate white moms in this rant. Black people struggle with biracial hair just as much. I can't recall how many Black salons I visited, both as a child and an a adult, that tried to flip-it-slap-it-and-rub-it-down with some type of greasy goop better suited for taming a buffalo's ass...more to come...gotta go get the kids!

The Dilemma of Hair

Okay, it may be a little early in our blog to get into the infamous "hair" conversation, but I have to share. Yesterday I went to my friendly spa for a wax (TMI). As I was leaving, one of the employees (who I see regularly) asked me what kind of products I use on my hair. NOTE: my hair was curly, I had just washed it and run out the door. I told her a few things had used/currently use and she took copious notes.

When I looked at her funny (her straight, blonde hair would not be receptive to Aveda Be Curly or Mixed Chicks Leave in conditioner or Abba Mint Conditioning shampoo for curly hair), she informed me that she had two bi-racial children and she just didn't know what to do with their hair. She said that her son's hair would "dread up" (her words) in the back and she had a hard time combing it out. Then she showed me a picture -- this kid's hair was light brown with big, soft curls (FYI - no dreads in sight). The little girl was just as gorgeous, with shiny black curls.

I asked her what she was currently putting in their hair and she said BABY LOTION. I have heard of many white mothers doing this because the just didn't know what to do. I recommended that she simply use a soft baby shampoo and conditioner if needed, but not to weigh their hair down with too many products, especially made for the body not the hair! She was so grateful for the help, but I felt bad for the tens of thousands of mothers like her who are looking at their small black children and shuddering at the thought of having to tame their hair.

In the end, I think that you have to let it do what it will and find gentle, non-alcohol based products that will not strip their hair of vital moisture. But I think this is a great topic to outline since so many women are struggling with this issue.

One last note. The other thing to keep in mind is that not every mixed kid has the same type of hair! My sister's hair is much more coarse and thick than mine, but mine is fine and curly (when it wants to be). How are products supposed to account for this?

Finally!

I'm super-excited that we're finally doing this. We have these flashback conversations all the time during which we recount our sordid tales and escapades noting one common thread: how similar our experiences are. Sure, a lot of that has to do with the fact that we've known each other for over a decade and we lived together. But, the discussions usually take on more of a memoir feel...the scratchy chronicles of ashy-headed misfits-turned-cool-girls. Kindred spirits -- odd, huh? Iowa to NYC. Nuclear family to model of dysfunction. 90210 to creepy gumbo night at the stranger's house...THE SAME!

Welcome to Mixed Revues!

In this blog, we'll discuss all the fascinating (and wonderfully mundane) issues bi-racial and multiracial people of the world uniquely experience. Enjoy!