AHC: No One Drop Rule; Colored-Americans?

Coloured as a designation was one that flattened the distinct histories and bloodlines of a number of mixed race groups.

Cape Malays, Griquas, the Cape Coloured, along with eastern South African mixed populations were all put under the collective "Coloured" in the Population Registration Act of 1950.

The formation of a mixed race identity arose from the "free black" population of the Dutch colonial era.

They formed the foundations of multiple groups (one such being the Oorlams that sprand the Griqua and Baster folks) being made up of emancipated African, Asian and Mixed people who assimilated into a westernized Dutch and Dutch Creole speaking community.

However mixed race ancestry in an of itself is not the foundations of Cape Coloured, Cape Malay or Griqua identity.

For example the abeLungu were known as a Xhosa clan with several european forebearers and retained phenotypical traits and yet they were never anything but Blacks legally and socially.

Mixed Race status was alotted in the colonial era to those of mixed race ancestry in the colonies who approximated European folkways.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

People of different ethnic backgrounds and traditions were all counted as white - British, Afrikaans, Portuguese, Greek, Jews etc. And ditto with black people - Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho, Pedi etc. were all counted as black even though there were many differences in language, culture, and so on.
 
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

People of different ethnic backgrounds and traditions were all counted as white - British, Afrikaans, Portuguese, Greek, Jews etc. And ditto with black people - Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho, Pedi etc. were all counted as black even though there were many differences in language, culture, and so on.

My point is Mixed Race identity historically in South Africa was a cultural identity that was related to the shared ethnogenesis of Cape Colonists and servants/enslaved

Being mixed race ≠ being Coloured before or during Apartheid.

Mixed Race identity formed in SA as "Free Blacks" in a VOC world gained access to material wealth, cultural access to Dutch folkways and/or intermarried/made union with Europeans at the same time that Cape Colony was expanding and the battles/wars with non-khoi (who by then were being assimilated into servitude) native Africans were mounting.

Coloured identity in an apartheid era world sought to consolidate various ethnic groups with disperate genetic and cultural identities under one rubric in an attempt to continue white minority dominance in the country.

It's use shifted into a phenotypical one used to enfranchise or disenfranchise individuals depending on their proximity figuratively speaking to "native blacks" instead of a collective history or an assortment of ethnicities.
 
I know youre feeling attacked right now but don't be selective with your quotes.

The registration act shows the phenotypical and cultural parameters of white was that was permeable. Read my above post, I am well aware of the racial history of South Africa.

In fact my main focus in colonial history is mixed race identity :)

Don't waste my time with fairytales, find me legal documentation that Irish were legally not white before during and after the Potato famine.

Being seen as no better than black vs not being White are two different things.

What are you going to say next the Irish were chattel slaves?

Historical revisionism that centers the Irish as the ultimate victims is so... trite, I thought people moved last that as their myths were debunked.

No no one has attacked me yet.
What other than phenotypical and cultural parameters did they have to judge ancestry? I do not understand what point you making.

I never said the Irish were legally considered to be Blacks. I know of no law anywhere saying this ever.

As you say. "Being seen as no better than black vs not being White are two different things." I imagine this has been said about a lot of groups other than the Irish.

I thought the Irish "becoming white" was a metaphor for when the Irish were no longer considered dangerous foreigners.

The only Irish slaves I know about in modern times was in North Africa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Baltimore

I imagine you are talking about the slave trade in the Americas.

The Irish were sent by Cromwell to the Americas as forced labour. Not slaves.
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/irish-slaves-myth-2369653-Oct2015/

"Irish as the ultimate victims"? The Irish did have a lot of very bad things happen to therm in history. Compared to what happen to other groups like American Indians,Jews,African Americans,Australian aborigines etc the Irish got off lightly.
 
No no one has attacked me yet.
What other than phenotypical and cultural parameters did they have to judge ancestry? I do not understand what point you making.

I never said the Irish were legally considered to be Blacks. I know of no law anywhere saying this ever.

As you say. "Being seen as no better than black vs not being White are two different things." I imagine this has been said about a lot of groups other than the Irish.

I thought the Irish "becoming white" was a metaphor for when the Irish were no longer considered dangerous foreigners.

The only Irish slaves I know about in modern times was in North Africa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Baltimore

I imagine you are talking about the slave trade in the Americas.

The Irish were sent by Cromwell to the Americas as forced labour. Not slaves.
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/irish-slaves-myth-2369653-Oct2015/

"Irish as the ultimate victims"? The Irish did have a lot of very bad things happen to therm in history. Compared to what happen to other groups like American Indians,Jews,African Americans,Australian aborigines etc the Irish got off lightly.

The Irish were always white, their is no need to bring up the Irish in a conversation of black Americans. They were always white legally and socially, the disdain of many was post-potato famine xenophobia not racism.

Go back on subject.
 
My point is Mixed Race identity historically in South Africa was a cultural identity that was related to the shared ethnogenesis of Cape Colonists and servants/enslaved

Being mixed race ≠ being Coloured before or during Apartheid.

Mixed Race identity formed in SA as "Free Blacks" in a VOC world gained access to material wealth, cultural access to Dutch folkways and/or intermarried/made union with Europeans at the same time that Cape Colony was expanding and the battles/wars with non-khoi (who by then were being assimilated into servitude) native Africans were mounting.

Coloured identity in an apartheid era world sought to consolidate various ethnic groups with disperate genetic and cultural identities under one rubric in an attempt to continue white minority dominance in the country.

It's use shifted into a phenotypical one used to enfranchise or disenfranchise individuals depending on their proximity figuratively speaking to "native blacks" instead of a collective history or an assortment of ethnicities.

How would that entrench whit dominance? And as I said, one could argue that was one with regard to the white and black racial categories too.
 
How would that entrench whit dominance? And as I said, one could argue that was one with regard to the white and black racial categories too.

It's simple. If Coloured is a consolidated ethnic group, and not simply the mix of different of groups, you completely disregard this group as 'link' between white and black populations and increase the sense of otherness, as it's just another isolated ethnicity.
 
IIRC French Canadians make a distinction between uppercase Métis (ie. the Métis people) and lowercase métis (mixed-race in French). This linguistic innovation was created way after the end of the French colonial period.
 
It's simple. If Coloured is a consolidated ethnic group, and not simply the mix of different of groups, you completely disregard this group as 'link' between white and black populations and increase the sense of otherness, as it's just another isolated ethnicity.

Coloured culture (in general) is not far off white Afrikaans culture. Share a language, religion (in most cases), sports, food etc.

There is a movement by some in South Africa to stop talking about Afrikaners (white people who speak Afrikaans as a home language) but Afrikaanses - all those who use the language.

If that had happened in the 20th century Coloured people may have been part of a broader 'Western bloc' in SA, along with Afrikaners and other whites.

Even today coloured people (especially in urban areas) generally vote for the DA, the party supported by most whites.
 
Coloured culture (in general) is not far off white Afrikaans culture. Share a language, religion (in most cases), sports, food etc.

There is a movement by some in South Africa to stop talking about Afrikaners (white people who speak Afrikaans as a home language) but Afrikaanses - all those who use the language.

If that had happened in the 20th century Coloured people may have been part of a broader 'Western bloc' in SA, along with Afrikaners and other whites.

Even today coloured people (especially in urban areas) generally vote for the DA, the party supported by most whites.

Ok, but that's 2018. What about during the Apartheid? I don't think that Afrikaaners intermarried with Coloureds just like during the Dutch colonial period.

EDIT: I don't know we can blame Apartheid or even British colonialism. The Boers did distance themselves from the Griquas, for instance.
 
Ok, but that's 2018. What about during the Apartheid? I don't think that Afrikaaners intermarried with Coloureds just like during the Dutch colonial period.

EDIT: I don't know we can blame Apartheid or even British colonialism. The Boers did distance themselves from the Griquas, for instance.

Well, during apartheid it was illegal for whites to sleep with anyone who wasn't white.

But as I say, that's the trick that was missed, if coloureds had been brought onside, there would have been a broader 'Western' coalition during apartheid.

If coloureds had had full voting rights, rather than a restricted franchise, the NP would never have come to power, and that's part of the reason they had their voting rights removed.
 
Well, during apartheid it was illegal for whites to sleep with anyone who wasn't white.

But as I say, that's the trick that was missed, if coloureds had been brought onside, there would have been a broader 'Western' coalition during apartheid.

If coloureds had had full voting rights, rather than a restricted franchise, the NP would never have come to power, and that's part of the reason they had their voting rights removed.

You're right about the Cape but I don't know how it would after the rest of South Africa. It would be interesting to have a POD where we can see a mixed-race population also in the former Boer republics.
 
Since we're talking about retroactive racial changes, wouldn't it be possible for a group of lighter skinned blacks to call for acknowledgement? A lot of ethnic groups have campaigned for recognition despite the public perception being different from their own.
 
The Irish were always white, their is no need to bring up the Irish in a conversation of black Americans. They were always white legally and socially, the disdain of many was post-potato famine xenophobia not racism.

Go back on subject.

What point are you Making? I have already stated the Irish were always considered white. I am not sure what the patato fammine has to do with a
The Irish were always white, their is no need to bring up the Irish in a conversation of black Americans. They were always white legally and socially, the disdain of many was post-potato famine xenophobia not racism.

Go back on subject.

I never said the Irish were anything other than white. I did not bring up the subject of the Irish. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "the disdain of many was post-potato famine xenophobia not racism".
 
Top