“Where Are You From?”

Hypodescent is the act of anyone of mixed race being classified as their socially inferior parentage.

Hypodescent was the basis for the “one-drop rule”, in which any individual with any traceable black ancestry was classified as black. The main difference between hypodescent and the one-drop rule is that hypodescent is an ideology and was not legally enforced unlike the one-drop rule. The basis of hypodescent dates back to the

17th century. During the 17th century, African American slaves began to replace European indentured servants. The African American slave population grew in order to meet labor needs, a divide grew between enslaved and free European Americans. This distinction between enslaved African

Americans and free European American was merely black individuals and white individuals (Daniel 2002, 38).

This was the first act instilling a binary classification between white and black. The beginning of biracial and multiracial individuals began with relationships between the white slave owners and the enslaved individuals.

In some cases these relationships were consensual but many were violent cases of rape. The inhumane act of was the foundation of racial inferiority among African Americans. In order to justify slavery and , scientific and were used to rationalize and reproduce racial inequality. These ideas became popular throughout the 19th century and people began to strongly support and believe the inferiority of African Americans. In 1865, enforced racial segregation by making it legal. They were enacted to preserve and racial inferiority of African Americans. In the early 20th century, this ultimately led to the enforcement by law of the one-drop rule which was officially adopted throughout the , particularly in the South. The one-drop law solidified race as binary, black and white, as well as asserted white superiority. It left no room for the expression or sheer existence of biracial and multiracial individuals.

Hypodescent and the monoracial imperative cemented the idea of race as binary. This set social classifications and hierarchical formations between blacks and whites. Blacks unanimously fell into an inferior racial position socially, culturally and economically within the United States. The racial formation in the

United States has therefore been shaped by this “black-white paradigm” in which race falls into a singular category (Daniel 2002, xi). This further erases the idea of someone being biracial or multiracial. Because of this, multiracial or biracial individuals have been forced into a binary racial category chosen by society. This has led to the abandonment of their multiracial and biracial identities in order to fit into a social category.

Hypodescent and the one-drop rule established a clear divide amongst black and . Due to the one-drop rule, internalized the law and began to identify as black; even if they had not identified as black, they would have been assigned to the black race by society. As the idea of race as binary became more popular, people treated multiracial individuals, who were identified as black in an awful and inhumane way. Discrimination and prejudice began to grow in the United States particularly in the South. In addition, Jim Crow laws which were passed in 1865 legally enforced segregation. Due to the growing restrictions and racism, multiracial people began resisting hypodescent in the forms of , blue vein societies and forming triracial isolates.

Passing was a form of integration in which a multicultural individual, had an American European phenotype and cultural orientation and could therefore pass as “white” in order to enjoy the privileges that came with being a white person such as power, prestige and wealth. (Daniel 2002, 50) The “Great Age” of passing occurred between 1880-1925, in response to the enforcement of Jim Crow laws. One form of passing is discontinuous passing. Discontinuous passing is a nonpermanent type of passing when a multiracial person temporarily passes as a white person for a short period of time. Discontinuous passing is when a black person holds a white job during the day but comes home to their black community (Daniel 2002, 50). Another form of passing was continuous passing in which a multiracial person permanently crosses over to identifying as white.

Individuals who follow this form of passing completely abandon their black ancestry in order to enjoy the privileges of a white person.

Due to hypodescent, multiracial people were often caught between being considered part of the black or white race. Phenotypically, they were often not light-skinned enough to fully pass as European American yet they were not dark-skinned enough to be accepted into the black community. This led to a lost sense of identity and a feeling of not belonging that plagued many multiracial individuals. If a multiracial person could pass as white, they often took advantage of this opportunity in order to feel a sense of belonging to a community. Passing as white was a form of integrationism which provided multiracial people a sense of belonging. Furthermore, passing resisted the one-drop rule because it allowed multiracial people to be fluid with their racial identity. They could pass as white even though due to the one-drop rule they were identified as black. Integrating into the white society granted multiracial people the privileges that came with being a white person such as wealth, power and prestige. This is a form of egalitarian integrationist because multiracial individuals were able to integrate into white society and enjoy equal opportunities. Even though multiracial people were forced to abandon their black ancestry in order to pass as white, they were fortunate enough to escape being subjected to racism. Leaving behind a part of your identity is challenging and depressing for many; passing as white highlighted the desperateness and willingness of multiracial individuals to escape their black-identified lives in order to increase their opportunities and enjoy a better life.

Along with passing as a form of hypodescent resistance, blue-vein societies arose in the 19th century.

Blue vein societies were exclusive social groups of light skinned African American’s who were unable to fully pass as white but were lighter in skin color than other dark skinned African American descents. This is another circumstance in which those of multiracial descent were stuck between two communities without a sense of belonging, therefore they formed their own separate blue-vein societies. In order to be accepted into the community, one had to be light skinned enough to see their veins. They were convinced they suffered from racial stereotypes of black masses who “possessed little knowledge of or appreciation for the ‘laws governing society’” and therefore held them separate from blacks and considered themselves “multiracial elites” (Daniel

2002, 55). The meaning behind a multiracial elite was that they deemed themselves dominant and more deserving than other, particularly darker skinned, multiracial individuals. This is a form of inegalitarian pluralism, characterized by promoting the inequality between people of multiple races. Inegalitarian pluralism is further illustrated here by using the term “interracial colorism”. Colorism is an ideology that people with lighter skin are superior, more beautiful and therefore more deserving within society (Golash-Boza 2019). Blue vein societies consisting of multiracial elites is a clear example of interracial colorism. The members of this society believed they were better than other African American descents simply because of their lighter skin and more “typical” European American looks such as straight hair and sharp features. Because of this, multiracial elites discriminated against darker multiracial individuals.

In addition to passing and blue vein societies, triracial isolates exemplified a resistance towards the rule of hypodescent. Triracial isolates are communities throughout the United States “of varying combinations and degrees of Europeans American, Native American and African American descent” (Daniel 2002, 68).

These communities are pluralistic, containing individuals with a mix of backgrounds. They are united by their similar living conditions on the outskirts of cities in hilly, swampy or muddy areas (Daniel 2002, 68). Triracial isolate communities are off the grid in their own isolated enclaves. By forming these communities, they are challenging the binary racial project created by hypodescent. They refuse to conform to a white or black race and therefore have created their own communities around the United States for multiracial people. This was appealing for many multiracial people because they had the ability to fit into a community without conforming to a white or black race.

It is evident that multiracial individuals faced several forms of oppression due to hypodescent and its monoracial imperative. Passing, blue-vein societies and triracial isolates exemplify these struggles of both racial oppression and a sense of isolation that many multiracial people experienced. Because of unequal and discriminatory experiences, multiracial individuals formed organizations such as blue vein societies and triracial isolates as well as followed a form of passing in order to resist the one-drop rule and find a sense of belonging. These practices were known as collective social projects. They sought to “rescue multiracial identities from distortion and erasure by dominant society” (Daniel 2002, 84). Passing, blue vein societies and triracial isolates not only sought to protect multiracial identities but also challenged the binary racial project.

By forming outside organizations or conforming to a community in terms of passing, they were challenging the idea that race was only existent in the forms of white or black. The opression and discrimination multiracial individuals faced was a powerful source of social mobilization. Multiracial individuals resistance to a binary racial project is what created an unbreakable bond amongst the community. They were united by their experiences of racial oppression and therefore found ways of expressing their identities within a confined society that continuously discounted biracial and multiracial identities through the ideas of hypodescent and the one-drop rule.

The pushback of hypodescent, a monoracial imperative and one-drop rule brought about an awareness of the limitations and mistreatment many multiracial African-American descent individuals faced. This led to the “dismantling of Jim Crow segregation and the implementation of civil rights legislation during the 1950s and 1960s dissolved the formal mechanism barring individuals of African descent from contact with whites as equals.” (Daniel 2002, 97) Particularly, in 1967, there was a massive breakthrough in which the Loving vs.

Virginia Act was removed. This ended several centuries of legal barriers to in Southern and border states. An increase of interracial couples resulted in a boom of multiracial and biracial offspring.

Parents raised their children to embrace their white and black backgrounds. They taught them about both sides of their ancestry to honor and instill pride onto their offspring of their multiracial identities and backgrounds.

They described their children as “rainbow,” “brown,” “blended,” “mixed,” and “multiracial” (Daniel 2002,

102). These terms challenged the idea that race is binary. These children are not white nor black, they are both and this contradicts the one-drop rule which denies the identity of a multiracial individual; if you are the slightest fraction black you are identified as black yet these terms define a contrary idea.

Prior to the 1970s, multiracial individuals were marginalized and limited in their identity due to the one-drop rule. The new multiracial identity uses their backgrounds to embrace both black and white individuals. This was a term coined by Reginald Daniel called, “liminality”. It was an inbetween space in which multiracial people stand which embraces both sides of their ancestry. They have an identity in which they are not limited to one particular racial group but manifest an identity encompassing multiple racial groups.

This is further illustrated through synthesized and functional identities. A synthesized pluralistic identity is a multiracial individual who “references themselves in both the black and white communities, as well as in multracial settings in equal measure.” “Those with a synthesized integrative identity reference themselves in the black and white communities in fairly equal measure” (Daniel 2002, 107). This illustrates that multiracial individuals can vary between pluralism and integrationism in black and white communities, it is not of particular importance to their identity. A synthesized identity does not solely focus on race as being one’s identifying factor, it embodies a combination of factors that make up one’s identity. A multiracial person with a functional identity, “tend to view the world through the lens of race in a much more immediate sense”

(Daniel 2002, 110). The functional identity can be pluralist or integrative in European American orientation or

African American orientation. The main difference between functional and synthesized is with a functional identity, race is important with whom a multiracial person identifies. Functional and synthesized identities illustrate an integrative-pluralistic continuum that gives multiracial people the ability to integrate into a white or black community and also embrace both of their racial identities. The new multiracial identity is not about gaining white privilege but critiquing the monoracial imperative and therefore challenges the racial hierarchy that has been instilled into society.

Furthermore, several organizations were formed to dismantle limitations of multiracial people established from the one-drop rule. The first organization, I-Pride was established in 1979 by interracial couples in Berkeley, California. I-Pride pushed public schools in Berkeley to acknowledge interracial students on school forms. I-Pride paved the way for many other organizations to gather in support of multiracial people.

By the 1990’s there was a multiracial movement that included organizations such as Multicultural Americans of Southern California in Los Angeles, The Biracial Family Network in , The Interracial Family

Alliance in Atlanta and The Interracial Family Circle in Washington D.C.. The main priority of these organizations was to pressure the “state to change procedures for collecting official data on race- particularly on the decennial census- so that multiracial-idenitified individuals could be statistically enumerated” (Daniel

2002, 123). By having a system in which multiracial individuals could be counted such as on the census, their identity would be recognized by the state. This was a way of acknowledging multiracial people and allowing them to self-identity in a more welcoming environment. These organizations worked to build the new multiracial identity that built on a form of egalitarian pluralism, the equality of multiracial people but also worked to integrate multiracial individuals into society in which they would be treated as equals.This also worked as a way to dismantle the one-drop rule. By recognizing biracial and multiracial people, one was provided with evidence that people are not either white or black but a mix; this idea challenged the binary racial project. Multiracial organizations came about in hopes of bettering the lives of multiracial individuals and provided them with more opportunities. They were bonded by the harsh experiences multiracial individuals faced prior to the 1970s.

The pressure from multiracial organizations proved successful. For the 1990 census officials, approved “to accept and code write-in responses of ‘biracial,’ ‘multiracial,’ and similar designations in the

‘other category’” on census forms (Daniel 2002, 125). This initiative acknowledged the presence of multiracial people and again challenged the idea of the binary racial project. This action was a form of inegalitarian integration. Multiracial people were allowed to include their multiracial identity but it was not recognized as a category unlike the other races. In addition, the term “other” has a negative connotation. It marginalizes an individual who would choose that box. This proved that they were allowed to be counted as multiracial people in the census but not in an equal or notable way.

Throughout history multiracial individuals have failed to be recognized by society as equals. Their mistreatment was shaped by hypodescent and the one-drop rule which instilled the idea that race is binary in the United States. This idea that multiracial people are neither white nor black has placed them on the margins of these racial categories. Marginal boundaries of multiple races, “The shared background becomes an integral part of the self-conception of multiracial identified individuals, and a defining component of the multiracial experience” (Daniel and Kelekay, 6). Since the 1967 Loving vs. decision was removed, which legally allowed interracial marriages, there has been an increase in the numbers of multiracial individuals in the

United States. Their representation, treatment and prominence has increased yet they still face discrimination and stigmas. As presented in The Oprah Winfrey Show, episode, “Growing Up Biracial”, multiracial individuals are consistently questioned “where are you from.” Their answers often do not satisfy what people want to hear or where expecting to hear based solely on their physical appearance. This continuously makes multiracial people feel as though they are a perpetual “foreigner”. One young, multiracial girl identified as black because she said it was “easier” for her because she looked more African American than any other race.

Since the 19th century, multiracial people have made successful strides to deconstruct the racial hierarchy, although, there is a continuing struggle of identity many of them face which is worsened by racial stigmas and inequalities perpetuated by society.

References

Daniel, G. Reginald. 2002. More than Black? Multiracial Identity and the New Racial Order. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Daniel, G. Reginald, and Jasmine Kelekay. n.d. “FROM LOVING V. VIRGINIA TO : THE SYMBOLIC TIE THAT BINDS.” CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW 50:28.

Golash-Boza, Tanya Maria. 2019. Race and : A Critical Approach. Brief second edition. New York: Oxford University Press.