I have tried not to be a mere “lurker” but to leave appropriate comments and identify myself on web sites focused on interracial relationships.  While Beyond Black & White is appropriately focused on dating, mating and relating, much of the content is helpful to us who have “swirled” through blending of extended families and adoption into our nuclear families.

Transracial adoption, like interracial coupling, is less controversial than even a decade ago.   But it still raises significant and valid issues between thinking, caring people both pro and con.  And, of course, not everyone you and I interact with daily is thinking or caring.

I won’t go into the history or politics of adoption except to say 20 years ago my wife and I–both white suburbanites-adopted an African American girl and six months later an Hispanic girl.  Both were born to urban women with extended families who wanted involvement but had obstacles of their own.  This was two years before federal law prohibited race as a consideration for adoption.  And this was counter to strong opposition by the National Association of Black social workers who even today equate adoption of black children by white parents to be cultural genocide.

Can I describe 20 years of bliss producing perfectly balanced children?  No.  Can I report children damaged by racial misunderstanding and cultural isolation unable to fit in with their peers or identify with their family heritage(s).  Certainly not.  (Much to my dismay, neither one seems to want to date a guy like Daddy, they like dark skinned guys, LOL.)

We are, and remain in many ways, a typical family with all the joys, frustrations, hopes, challenges, and successes of any other family but broadened and magnified by our differences amidst our unity.

Except for the fact that my wife and I chose to step out of our homogeneous environment I wouldn’t say we are any different from any other suburban (white) couple.  We grew up with few friends and acquaintances who weren’t like us.  The possibility of interracial dating just wasn’t there.  We had friends and family who were unabashedly racist. And yet as we entered the workplace, traveled, and reached beyond our families and communities we began to long for change.  Not superficial political change but deep change from within–change that might even in a little way heal the hurt of innocent children needing love and then spread to draw together people and generations to come.

This was not the dream of some idealistic youngsters.  At age 40 we said “Hell with the opinions of family and friends.”  We did the right thing and have been blessed and challenged beyond our dreams.  We watched relatives who previously expressed ignorant racist comments weep openly as they held our beautiful girls.  We heard sincere apologies from acquaintances  burdened by guilt after temporarily shutting us out.  Without exaggeration every one of our family and friends has been changed for the good by knowing and learning from our girls

Undoubtably we parents have learned the most.  Whether hair and skin care, historical information not normally found in schoolbooks, or differences in worship styles and church traditions, we have been stretched and challenged to grow.

Of course this begs the question “What of the children?  Are they just sacrificial lambs to the cause of racial unity?”. Since both are the age of consent I believe they would be willing to give their candid responses separately upon request.  What they express to me is that they would not have given up the childhood they had for what would have been available through biological family or same race foster care.

We have all grown through our differences.  We certainly don’t see eye to eye on some cultural values.  But we love one another and depend on one another.  My wife and I are now close friends with the biological mother and family of our oldest daughter (much to her dismay–she thinks we’re ganging up on her).  Both daughters reserve exclusive rights to alternately protect and fight one another

…sounds like any other family with all of its wonder and frustration?   You bet!  And I wouldn’t give our experiences and love for one another for anything.

I tried to get a copy of the open letter she wrote in Princeton’s newspaper, but I guess the rabies has spread enough to scare those folks into taking it down. What whimps!

But Pattan refuses to go away quietly, and I admire her guts to stand up for herself against the clusterphuck that’s come her way. This from her piece in the Huffington Post:

I sincerely feel that too much focus has been placed on encouraging young women only to achieve professionally. I understand that this can be seen as retrogressive, but for those women who aspire to what used to be thought of as a traditional life with home and family, there is almost no ink addressing personal fulfillment outside of the workplace. Specifically, finding lifelong friends and the right partner with whom to share a life and raise a family.

Again, I understand that all women don’t want marriage (to men or other women) and or children, but for those that do, identifying the right partner is critical. One of the criteria by which I am defining the right partner is someone with shared educational and intellectual appreciation. Yes, that can be found after college and outside of Princeton, but the concentration of outstanding men (and women) will never be greater than it is as a student. I wanted to encourage the wonderful young women on Princeton’s campus to take advantage of this while they can. From a sheer numbers perspective, the odds will never be as good again.

There were also other concerns…

My Afro was frisked at the airport by homeland security. I’d heard it happened to other people, but with ‘fros twice as big. What the heck did they think I was hiding in there–a switchblade?!

Then…

All the booze–specifically mojitos and vodka tonics–left me at risk for being thrown overboard during an apoplectic dance solo during the booze cruise along the Sea of Cortez…

And drinking…pretty much everywhere…

And you might get paranoid when your husband goes snorkeling in 50-degree water and think he’s faked his own death so he can quit his job and get a kabillion in insurance money…

But there were a few high points…

…I managed to stay on track with my healthy diet and I took my Ballet Body videos with me for remote-torture.

Then there’s this…

And this…

And this…

And…this…

On the other hand…meh. I can’t think of any reason why the hell not to go to Cabo during Spring Break, so…forget everything I just said.

CHEERS!!

Inevitably, anytime the children receive media attention, questions are often raised about the paternity of Paris and Prince, as they are fair skinned with fairly straight textured hair. Insinuations often center around the following:

• “they are too light skinned to be mixed”
• “bi-racial people look like Barack Obama or Halle Berry”
• “Michael Jackson once had strongly afro-centric features, it is impossible for his children not to have received any ‘black features’ at all”
• “all the other kids of the Jackson brothers are mixed and they look mixed, Prince and Paris should too”
• “Paris can’t be black because she has blue eyes”
• “Michael hated being black and bleached his skin therefore he obviously wanted white children”

This level of ignorance is astounding. I am quite curious as to how the biracial offspring of slaves were able to “pass” if they weren’t fair skinned enough to appear white.  Additionally, biracial children don’t always look like Barack or Halle, sometimes they look like Rashida Jones or Tom Sizemore.

Anyhow, while I am sure these suggestions are quite hurtful to Michael Jackson’s children, luckily they are extremely wealthy and have the means to get past this through therapy, a coordinated media campaign when they are older, etc. I’d like to focus on the women in our community who may have or one day have biracial children.

Given the nature of genetics, it is very possible that one of us could have a child who looks like Paris or Prince and to some people, appears white. Actress Victoria Rowell has discussed what it’s been like to be mistaken for her child’s nanny.  There are even worse things that could happen – like being accused of kidnapping when with your child or the usage of donor eggs being suggested. Not to mention the insults that might one day hurled at our children themselves – suggesting that they HAD to have been adopted, no way they could have a black mother and look so “white.” Additionally, the opposite could happen, where children with a non-black partner look “totally black” resulting in their paternity being questioned.

Much of our society continues to have a myopic, ignorant view of what bi- or multi-racial people “should” look like. While the target currently happens to be the wealthy children of an eccentric father, we could all one day find ourselves with children in the same boat. Attacks on the ethnicity of Paris and Prince based on their appearance are shameful. For those in our community with interracial children, how do you navigate questions about paternity/maternity centered around your child’s appearance?

NOTE: This is NOT a post about the life of Michael Jackson, his plastic surgery, etc. This is about the ethnic/racial identity (and therefore paternity/maternity) of children being questioned based on their phenotypes and appearance. Discussions about Michael Jackson’s life, trials, etc should be taken to other avenues, there are plenty of them on the interwebs.

My take was why in the world is her family in his family’s business anyway? He married a weak woman if she won’t stand up to her bully relatives about who’s children? Hers. If my family, babysitter, caretaker or anyone won’t respect how I raise my children and say that they will spank them regardless of what I say, they would not be around them. This should be a non issue.   I see nothing wrong with a swat on the behind now and then, but I have softened over the years and tend to be against spanking overall.  Taking away an ipad, or game box device can be worse than death for some kids.  But each child is different and parents sometimes need to deal with different children in different ways.  Whatever the manner of discipline, it is not the business of the in-laws to have any say in the matter.  I liked Lisa, a commenter’s take.

This was written by Frank Robinson, a Facebook friend of mine who has been observing our recent “black beauty” discussions. It touched him, so he wanted to share with all of you his feelings.

Did you notice? What you DON’T have seems to leverage you, either from within or without, (and maybe put/keep you in your place, so to speak). It leaves you feeling inadequate, needy. Everything and anything can be magnified, sometimes in a destructive way.
Parents, fathers of daughters in particular, YOU should be front and center in telling each of your daughters how beautiful, smart, precious, important she is to YOU! She should be able to sit on your lap safely, and hear those things that matter so much, first from YOU.
This will build her up unlike anything else. It will help equip her to look in the mirror, to face the world and protect her when she is age 11, 14, 17, 27 & 37…from sitting on some other fellow’s lap, while she is really looking for YOU, and this boy or man is pretending to be the man who is missing from her life.
Some things happen repeatedly. Some girls give out a wounded signal without knowing it and like a shark, some people (male & female predators/parasites) tune into that signal. The problem? She is blind to this and maybe wounded by the last person, SHE thinks this one will be different…that he will love her…this new relationship is like the dawn on a new morning. What she does not see, is the new guy is really no different than the last guy. The presence of a loving dad means so much, as someone noted, not just with girls.

I think as a kid I maybe WAS that other guy. But I made changes, tried to do better…to be a good father and learn from the mistakes of those who came before me. I even found a couple of old girlfriends from those days as a wild young guy and APOLOGIZED to them. Did not want to flirt or be misunderstood. Just that I had not treated her as she deserved, or I understood her weakness and manipulated that, and I was sorry for every disrespect & injury I had caused, and I NEEDED her forgiveness. I was DELIGHTED when each forgave me.
Frank Robinson

PS God is NOT colorblind. He invented color. Human beauty of every shade is all around us. Maybe we should learn to appreciate, rather than degrade.

How Did They Do It?

The patient, a newborn when the medications were first administered, was born in Mississippi and is now a toddler. According to the patient’s doctor, they treated the child with a faster, stronger dose of three separate anti-viral medications within 30 hours of birth. Having a mother who tested positive with HIV left the baby with extremely high chances of contracting the virus as well.

Since the virus infects and reinfects healthy T-cells and tissue, the extremely high doses of anti-virals given to the patient were said to have knocked out the HIV cells before they could deposit remotely in the newborn’s body (called “reservoir seeding”).

What This Could Mean For the Community At-Large

This is definitely a major accomplishment for modern medical science. And, the current statistics on HIV and AIDs prove that efforts like these will have a major impact on countries plagued by the disease.

“About 300,000 children were born with HIV in 2011, mostly in poor countries where only about 60 percent of infected pregnant women get treatment that can keep them from passing the virus to their babies. In the U.S., such births are very rare because HIV testing and treatment long have been part of prenatal care.”

So, while the US still struggles with HIV and AIDs transmission, the greatest impacts of the disease are found abroad. Poorer countries have been unable to come out of poverty, in part, because of their ongoing battles with aggregate health and the fight against diseases like AIDs and malaria. But, just imagine what these findings could mean for them now.

This case would actually be the second documented “cure” for HIV. A San Francisco man has been off of anti-virals since he received a bone marrow transplant five years ago. But, this new case proves that there may a host of methods to solving the AIDs epidemic, a disease which was once considered unbeatable.

In all, these findings are promising but will need a great deal of assistance through the process of implementation. Getting strong, expensive anti-viral meds to babies in remote countries will be an arduous task in and of itself. But, to also combat cultural blockages to drug administration could potentially thwart any immediate action against the disease. There has beena very well-documented fear of Western medicine in Africa especially after nurses and doctors were proven to have intentionally infected Libyan children with HIV. So, it is uncertain how these cures will be received there.

However, one thing is certain, medical science is changing things and quickly. And, though they have had some missteps before, their current direction appears to be squarely toward saving lives.

Could this beautiful baby be predisposed to poverty?

Poverty is the world’s most common issue. And, though many of us have not experienced it personally, we are all aware that poverty exists around the globe. On some continents, like Africa, poverty is much more commonplace than in other regions. For example, the Americas, Asia, and Europe have all made vast economic improvements over recent centuries and decades situating them well ahead of other developing nations. But, according to a recent study by two economists, this demarcation could have less to do with issues like agricultural development or terrain and more to do with simple genetics. So, is poverty in our DNA?

What is this topic even about? Something called “genoeconomics.” And, put simply, it is the linkage of chromosomes and money. In essence, scholars have ventured to find a direct relationship between DNA and aggregate economic success or impairment. And, a very important work will be published in the American Economic Review which makes some key assertions about nationality and money making potential.

The forthcoming article, titled “The “Out of Africa ”Hypothesis, Human Genetic Diversity, and Comparative Economic Development,” by Quamrul Ashraf and Oded Galor, maintains the following claim.

“While the low degree of diversity among Native American populations and the high degree of diversity among African populations have been a detrimental force in the development of these regions, the intermediate levels of genetic diversity prevalent among European and Asian populations have been conducive for development.”

Many people assign socioeconomic indicators like region, capital, class, and nationality to poverty. And, while all of these things have a correlative relationship with the phenomena, it has been quite difficult to assign a causal relationship to any one issue.

What is the difference between correlative and causal? Well, correlation says that where you find one thing (x) you are likely to find another (y). But, causality says that one thing (x) actually causes the other(y) to exist. And, this recent article on poverty has misleadingly claimed that racial or genetic diversity causes poverty.

So, in this case, the paper’s central thesis is simply that, historically,  African populations fought too much and Native American populations were too complacent. But, European and Asian populations had just the right amount of diversity to assist them in their cooperative efforts towards economic development. They use broad-based survey data to support these claims. And, to qualify the paper’s findings on “genetic diversity,” the authors have a lengthy set of peers from a host of reputable institutions, with economics being their primary expertise, to back-up their findings.

The claim seems flawed. Even from a bird’s eye view, it seems nearly impossible to find a singular causal link for something as monolithic as poverty. And, several other authors agree with that perception.

Contending authors, Jade d’Alpoim Guedes et al., have published a scathing critique of Ashraf and Galor titled “Is Poverty in Our Genes?” In the piece they note three main issues with the economists’ findings. First, they claim that Ashraf and Galor misuse scientific terminology and therefore do not understand key issues of genetic diversity. Second, they believe that the underlying data utilized in the analysis is flawed. And, lastly, the authors note a vast body of work out there which is in direct discord with Ashraf and Galor’s assertions.

Now, while these three criticisms are important in understanding why this article is receiving so much negative publicity, it is most important to measure the impact of the study’s findings on real human beings. These findings could suggest to countries struggling with economic development that they simply need to increase or decrease their levels of genetic diversity to meet Ashraf and Galor’s optimum levels.

In an email, when asked about the purported “bad science” in Ashraf and Galor’s piece, d’Alpoim Guedes wrote the following.

“People are upset, they are jobless and they are looking for an explanation. They are offered one by a government who decides to point the finger at their immigrants and which states ‘Scientists have proven that in order to help our economy we need to get rid of our genetic diversity, hence immigrants.’ (They are not going to read or understand any of the subtler points of the argument). Because of the dangers of statements like this, scientists need to be held to the highest ethical standards when it comes to informing the public of the limitations of one’s research.”

And how exactly do you change your genetic diversity? Well, there’s genocide. And, you could simply try your best to exile immigrants from your country. Or, you could limit the birth rate in naturalized citizens in an effort to dilute the natural population with immigrants from other lands. In any case, the idea sounds completely unrealistic or ethically unsound as a governmental means to economic improvement.

When asked about the “false positive” identified in the study, d’Alpoim Guedes answered simply, “There is no underlying truth to be found here.”

I am inclined to agree. So, what is the cause of poverty? Or is there one single cause at all? I once heard someone coin the term “moral luck.” I wonder if that applies here. If so, then there is nothing we can do to improve at all. But who wants to believe that?

Pay special attention to these parts here:

“At the time, Traylor was in what she believed was a monogamous relationship. During her annual doctor’s visit, she was disturbed to realize she had to ask specifically for an HIV test on top of a standard STD panel. She insisted on taking the test even though her doctor told her — as a heterosexual woman involved in a monogamous relationship — that she was low risk.

Later Traylor broke up with her boyfriend and began a new committed relationship. That was the year her life changed. Despite vigilance in testing, Traylor wasn’t prepared for what she found out at her doctor’s visit that year: She was HIV positive. Two weeks later she learned she was pregnant with her second child.”

It hadn’t been her current boyfriend who’d given her the disease, but rather an ex-boyfriend to whom she had been faithfully committed.

Who wants to bet she was led to believe that she was the “only one” this guy was sleeping with? It could be a situation where you have a man that’s HIV+ but doesn’t care and is just out infecting black women because he’s full of evil and hate. And that’s scary enough on its own. But even more scary than that? It could be he had no idea and still has no idea he’s HIV+. And that’s often the case despite these very real facts taken from the article in question:

- According to the CDC, 50,000 Americans are infected with HIV each year, and 25% of those are between the ages of 13 and 24.

- Sixty percent of youth with HIV don’t know they have it, despite recommendations from the CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Some other aspects of the article that a lot black women don’t want to hear about: The black men passing around AIDs aren’t just creeping around with “dirty man-stealing hos”. Sometimes the other woman is ACTUALLY the other man:

“The reality is, today, the majority of HIV infections are among men who have sex with men,” Kaplan said. “Without a doubt, we need broader screening efforts, but I think overall we need broader talk about sexuality in the United States.”

I would gladly rephrase that as “talk about sexuality among the black community”, because for all the NO HOMO! talk, some down-low love is going on, and it’s not all in jail and against someone’s will.

A number of young (and old) black women need to wake up to some uncomfortable realities when it comes to their bodies and their love life.

First, too many black women assume that the rules of a committed relationship outside of marriage is totally the same as being married. Just because you are faithful and true and almost-married doesn’t mean the brotha you’re with feels the same. And with there being more black women around than black men, especially women with man-sharing behaviors, what makes you think they want to feel that way? They certainly don’t have to feel that way. For your own peace of mind and physical safety…VET YOUR MEN WELL!

And by the way, that’s just the heterosexual black men. As was pointed out, a lot of black women are being infected by the double-dipping nobody wants to talk about: bisexual black men or gay black men playing the role of straight male. Men having unprotected sex with other men, and the infected men passing STDs/STIs along to their partners (both men and women), who then pass it to someone else, who passes it to someone else, etc.

In a recent post, there was a lot of talk about black women feeling “threatened” about holding onto a man and believing that if they don’t give it up, someone else will. That sort of I-need-to-spread-my-legs-to-keep-a-man fear is real, and it’s ruining lives because it’s built on an ugly lie. No man that demands you spread your legs or they’re “gonna find someone who will” is worth keeping. Especially if you’re being given this ultimatum after knowing the man all of two weeks. Laugh, but it does happen. And some young women don’t know they don’t have to listen to this kind of talk. They don’t know that they should insist on using condoms even if it doesn’t make their beau happy. They don’t know that every act of unprotected sex risks much more than an unwanted pregnancy.

These young women are risking their health and possibly their lives.

It isn’t enough to pretend that your being with one guy is enough to save your life and your womb. Because it’s not. Get tested often, and always use protection. Monogamy isn’t a condom.

But not all black women know how to function in society. Especially not in a way that is safe and sensible, let alone not embarrassing. But lets put aside embarrassing and focus on “safe and sensible”.

I’m going to re-introduce the definition of machoism from the previous post. AGAIN, please note the emphasis:

Machoism: Prominently exhibited or displayed masculinity….Characteristics include domineering, fierceness, bravado, and similar behavior patterns displayed showily or histrionically as being tough…The machismo of members of the human species are all exaggerated features that may cause injury to individuals that display them but attract females.

I say again from the above definition, “MAY CAUSE INJURY TO INDIVIDUALS THAT DISPLAY THEM.”

So then, anyone want to look at that video of the woman being tasered or the video of the woman getting her lights knocked out by the bus driver and tell me how what I witnessed did not fall under this category? Machoism, by its very definition is the combination of behaviors that are overly aggressive attempts to show off how “hardcore” you are and being placed in a situation that will very likely lead to harm.

And this is true of men.

I asked before, and I ask again, “If this behavior is dangerous to men, how does it become safe or okay for women?”

The answer remains the same: It does NOT.

I called the behavior an attack on black femininity and I’m not backing down from that claim. If anything, something in the video (other than the violence) happened that I found to be very interesting.

One of the children of the macho women in the video starts yelling, “THAT’S WHY YOU’RE GAY!” While what I assume is his mother or his mother’s friend is calling this guy a p*ssy.

The implication is that unless he acts in as an aggressive manner as they are, his masculinity is in jeopardy of being non-existant. He is not a man, he is a woman and this is somehow bad. This is the cornerstone of macho-thinking: I am challenging your manhood, and if you are a man, you will step to me and prove your masculinity.

Let’s stop and think about this for a moment. Femininity and womanhood is removed from this logic to the extent where it is expected that both parties recognize each other as masculine beings. Yes, that is exactly what we are seeing. Not only that, it is being openly detested and used as a goading tactic to incite violence.

How common is this behavior between overly aggressive and testosterone-laden males? And how common is it that from that point, it very well does escalate to violence?

And herein lies the problem when it comes to macho little black girls, teens, and women: They are not exceptions to the violence they are inciting.

Machoism in women is not a “have your cake and eat it too!” reality, where you get to behave in a way where you are challenging men as a man yourself, completely forsaking your womanhood, and then expect everyone to remember that you are a woman and that no harm will come to you.

The look of shock on the woman’s face (that’s not a pun, she looked shocked) when she got tased said it all. She honestly thought she could physically threaten this man, attack this man, and then everything would work out because she’s a woman. She tried it with the wrong man.

And she remains lucky that it was her pride that was hurt and she’ll be leaving with her life. People have been tased to death, you know.

But still, what if it had been a man with a gun? Or sans weapon, what if she was beaten to death right there in front of her crying children?

Tough questions must be asked of any community that attempts to normalize dangerous behaviors in women because they feel it’s safer to have hypermasculine little girls, lest they become “fast” little black girls. Tracy made a very telling observation in the referenced post:

“Don’t be too shocked ladies, lack of teaching about black female ‘hygiene’ is another form of them avoiding her ‘fastness’… That’s not poverty, that’s a mental condition causing the neglect. ”

I do strongly suspect that this behavior is a sadistic attempt to encourage black women into a mentality and lifestyle that “protects them” from being feminine little girls. Because there are too many predators in the black community who don’t see a sweet little girl. Instead, they see a wet hole just asking for it because she’s a ho anyway. And the further a little girl is from, well a little girl, the less likely she’s supposed to be confused with one. If she’s out challenging men and threatening violence, no one would think about sexing her…right?

Well…the women in the video were mothers so there goes that logic.

What we have instead is the Frankenstein creation of neglect and ignorance, the false belief that womanhood cast aside can be trusted to be remembered by every challenged party. The machoism that is getting women hurt and killed.

No one is saying wear a dress always and throw tea parties. No one is saying be “traditionally” feminine. At least I’m not saying this.

What I am trying to drive home is the reality of machoism, and that it is an unhealthy level of aggression that gets men AND women hurt and killed.

I am not a romantic so I’m not going to lie to you about this: There are no exceptions to this rule.

If you play with fire, you are going to get burned. If you encourage black girls to act like overly aggressive prison yard criminals, then that’s how they’ll behave, and when they step to the wrong person, they are going to inevitably get hurt.

How does this behavior become corrected?

I honestly don’t know. I think if I person wants to change they can. Of course that requires they know there’s something fundamentally wrong with their behavior. Why would you change aspects of yourself that you don’t consider problematic?

I guess the first step is acknowledging that this is a problem that is far too common to be any good. That this is not the way to encourage your black daughters to be, even if you delude yourself into believing hyper aggression and black male criminal imitation is less problematic than everyone knowing your dealing with a girl/woman. Because the worst case scenario is absolute success: Your girl-child/daughter’s machoism encourages her to get in the face of someone who is armed and or dangerous and it gets her killed.

Author’s Note:

As before, I’m not taking about sexuality (although the homophobia/misogyny expressed is rather interesting given the behavior, and definitely worth a topic of its own) or being “a tomboy”. There is a CLEAR and distinct difference between being a tomboy and being a hyper-aggressive black girl trying to fight and beat up on everyone. Please don’t play dumb.

Also, please note again that machoism is a definition usually used to describe distinctly human male behaviors, while still calling those behaviors “harmful”. So understand this is a way of being that while masculine is still considered wrong. In other words, for those who think this is an attack on less traditional and feminine black women, here you have a definition aimed at men telling them that it is unsafe. Attempting to make it safe for women because they are women is not forward thinking or progressive and expect me to challenge you if you try and pass it off as such. There are too many hurt and dead black women proving otherwise.