Mixed Race Studies

Campus Colorlines: The Changing Boundaries of Race Within Institutions of Higher Education in the Post-Civil Rights Era

University of Southern California
August 2007
675 pages

Patricia Elizabeth Literte, Assistant Professor of Sociology
California State University, Fullerton

A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School University of Southern California In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

The post-Civil Rights era has been characterized by numerous challenges to traditional understandings of race. The dismantling of legalized segregation and discrimination, ongoing immigration from Asia and Latin America, increasing acceptance of interracial contact and relationships, and relatively unceasing conflict between the Western and Arab world, are just some of the socio-political trends and events which have yielded an increasingly fluid, complex, and intricate racial terrain. Given the increasing fluidity of race in U.S. society, the overarching goal of this dissertation is to illuminate the nature and implications of changing racial identity boundaries in the post-Civil Rights era. In order to fulfill this goal, I examine (1) the experiences of university students who defy conventional racial identity categorizations, (2) the processes of organization/mobilization in which these students engage, and (3) the role universities play in shaping and responding to these students, whose racial identities and politics are often incongruent with the institutions’ views of race. The majority of research on college students’ racial identities and racialized political activity focuses on conventional understandings of racial identity, which rely on the assumption that there are five singular racial categories – black/African American, Latino/a, white, Asian American, and Native American. Less is known about racial identities and corollary political activity which falls outside these boundaries. My dissertation addresses this gap through a two-tieredanalysis. First, I comparatively examine how students come to organize/mobilize around two identities which challenge singular or “monoracial” conceptualizations of race: (1) biracial identity and (2) “people of color” identity. Second, I examine how monoracially oriented student services (i.e., black student service offices) respond to such organization/mobilization. Study of these processes within the particular domain of higher education can assist student service practitioners in the formulation and implementation of programming on increasingly diverse campuses and can provide insight into how students can more fully participate in their universities’ public life. My methods of data collection include interviews (N = 90) with students and administrators, student focus groups, observation, and archival research.

Table of Contents

• Dedication
• Acknowledgements
• Abstract
• Chapter 1: Introduction: The Changing Nature of Race in Post-Civil Rights Society
• Part 1: Institutional Histories: Understanding the Racial Dynamics of Three Universities
  • Chapter 2: Western University: The Long, Strange Path from Racial Leftism to Colorblindness
  • Chapter 3: California University: A Bastion of Conservatism Rethinks its Identity in the Post-Affirmative Action Era
  • Chapter 4: Bay University: A Majority-Minority School Struggles and Embraces Multiculturalism
• Part 2: The Construction and Mobilization of Biracial Identity: Disrupting the Monoracial Landscape of Universities
  • Chapter 5: Western University and California University: Biracial Students: Facing Double Consciousness, Otherness, and the Complexities of Organizing
  • Chapter 6: Bay University: The Force of Working Class Status, the One Drop Rule, and Mestizaje: The Absence of Biracial Students
• Part 3: “We all share the same struggle”: Coalition Building and the Formation of People of Color Identity among University Students
  • Chapter 7: Western University: The Power of Students of Color: A Tradition of Resistance Continues in the Wake of Proposition 209
  • Chapter 8: California University: Contesting Apathy and the Strength of Monoracialism: Students of Color Struggle to Engage New Racial Politics
  • Chapter 9: Bay University: Working Class Obligations, Segregation, and the Black-Brown Conflict: The Diminishment of Coalitions and People of Color Identity among Students
  • Chapter 10: Conclusion
• Bibliography

Read the entire dissertation here.

Half-white is an insult

The Guardian
2008-11-13

Michael Paulin

The debate over how black Obama is obscures the racial reconciliation his election represents

Barack Hussein Obama’s stunning victory against what was a thoroughly cynical Clinton campaign and a confused and morally bankrupt conservative Republican opposition is as historically significant as the fall of the Berlin Wall. His victory has revealed that a radical new form of political discourse and dialogue is possible, and that the tired dichotomies the political class have sustained for so long can be challenged by the people.

We now have our first black president. The most powerful man in the world is a black man. A man partly raised by his white grandparents. We have the first black president of the United States and, simultaneously, our first mixed-race president.

In Britain, Obama’s victory has exposed a predominantly white minority’s inherent suspicion and mistrust of black people. Christopher Hitchens, appearing on Newsnight last week, declared: “We do not have our first black president. He is not black. He is as black as he is white. He is not full black.” Rod Liddle, writing in the current edition of the Spectator under the headline “Is Barack Obama really black?”, suggested that “coloured“—a term of reference used in apartheid South Africa—would be more appropriate…

…These commentators are ignorant of the realities of the black experience and of the possibility of being of mixed heritage. Hitchens’s reliance on the concept of being “full black”, which harks back to the age of eugenics, exposes just how reactionary he has become. At this great moment in the global struggle for genuine democracy and racial unity, such commentators wriggle in discomfort, clinging to Obama’s “whiteness” in order to appease their own anxieties about the fact that we now have a black president. Even Yasmin Alibhai-Brown wrote an atrocious piece in the Evening Standard suggesting it was an insult to Obama’s mother to call him black…

…It is unfortunate that this needs to be said but, for the avoidance of doubt: Barack Hussein Obama is black. Yet he is also mixed-race. Perhaps more important, he is a black, mixed-race intellectual…

Read the entire article here.

A Multiracial Movement and a Multiracial Box Won’t Solve the Racism Problem

Rachel’s Tavern: Race, Gender, and Sexuality from a Sociological Perspective
2007-04-02

Rachel Sullivan, Associate Professor of Sociology
Montgomery College, Germantown, Maryland

In a comment on the last thread on Rachel’s Tavern about how biracial children affect family approval of black/white relationships Dave of mulatto.org, made the following comment:

Professor Rachel Sullivan here gives a good textbook example of propaganda that facilitates white/black biracial subordination, by making the case that white/black biracials shouldn’t be considered a population with challenges distinct from blacks except for being more privileged.

The problem is that this is not what I said, but I do think this is an opportunity to talk about some of the politics of multiracial identity. For the record, my dissertation was not on how people of mixed race identify. It was about family approval of black/white relationships, and the reason children (biracial or not) were important was because the most common reason given for opposing an interracial relationship was the idea that the children would suffer. That belief was premised on the “tragic mulatto myth.” In this study, all of the people I interviewed were couples in Black/White interracial relationships. Only one of those people self identified as biracial. I did not interview the children of these couples, so I did not get their opinions.

However, for the record I do not agree with Dave’s position, which to me reads that “people who have one black parent and one white parent are a distinct racial group and should identify as biracial, mixed race, or mulatto, not as black.” (I’m not sure how he feels about people of mixed parentage identifying as white.) Here’s a quote from his comment:

It’s logically inconsistent to say (1) white/black biracials should be identified as black because most white people will only see and treat them as black, and (2) whites treat white/black biracials better than black people because they see them as different than dark-skinned black people. Although I don’t think this makes logical sense, I think it’s crafted to be anti-white/black biracial propaganda. The first part implies that white/black biracials shouldn’t have a distinct affinity identity to organize and advocate for ourselves, because we aren’t treated differently, and the second part implies that white/black biracials are less deserving of telescopic philanthropy (definition on Wikipedia) than black people.

Dave’s belief is that mixed race people mixed ancestry should organize their own groups, and they should see themselves as distinction from African Americans. I have no objection to organizing some multiracial groups, but I also thinking that many of the needs, concerns, and issues overlap with those of other people of color. Personally, I do not think it would be beneficial to try to create a new racial group akin to the “colored” population in South Africa.

I am tired of multiracial activists who say people should have an option to choose their race, and then these same people get mad if people do not choose “biracial” or “multiracial.” People should have the choice, regardless of their color of phenotype, to define themselves racially. I also feel that these choices may change over time or circumstances; making racial identities fluid in some cases. I feel that both the one drop rule, and the assertion that people must choose biracial are racist because they encourage essentialist definitions of race and because they do not allow the freedom of self definition…

Read the entire entry here.

Post-race? Nation, Inheritance and the Contradictory Performativity of Race in Barack Obama’s ‘A More Perfect Union’ Speech

thirdspace: a journal of feminist theory & culture
Volume 10, Number 1 (2011)
18 pages

Bridget Byrne, Senior Lecturer in Social Sciences
University of Manchester

This article takes the speech that Barack Obama made in his campaign for democratic nomination in 2008 as a moment in the performativity of race. It argues that Obama was unable to sustain an attempt to be ‘post race’, but is also asks the extent to which Obama was able to re-write the way in which race is positioned within the US, particularly with reference to the place of African-Americans within the national narrative.

Introduction

[S]ome people have a hard time taking me at face value. When people who don’t know me well, black or white, discover my background (and it usually is a discovery, for I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites), I see the split-second adjustment they have to make, the searching of my eyes for some tell-tale sign. They no longer know who I am.
(Obama, Dreams from my Father xv).

It’s not likely that there are too many people left who do not know who Barack Obama is, or that he is the product of a ‘brief union’ as he puts it, between ‘a black man and a white woman, an African and an American’ (Obama, Dreams from my Father xv). Nonetheless, Obama’s racial identity remains a source of fascination. The website democraticunderground.com hosted a discussion thread in March 2008 prompted by the question ‘What ethnicity is Obama’. The original questioner was interested in exploring ‘his white half’s ethnicity’. One of the respondents to this thread provides links to a website publishing Obama’s family tree and writes ‘it is amazing to see just how ‘white’ his mother and grandparents are’. The same respondent also provides a picture from Obama’s mother’s high school yearbook to demonstrate her ‘amazing’ whiteness as well as one of Obama with his white grandparents. The thread continues with a string of photos of different members of his family (including his half-Indonesian sister’s ‘Oriental husband who came from Canada’). This is just one example of the fascination that Obama’s racial positioning prompts in supporters and detractors alike and suggests that for many, it takes more than a ‘split-second’ adjustment to reconcile themselves to complex ideas of family, heritage and racialized identities.

This paper will explore a particular moment in the racialized positioning of Obama and his own self-positioning as an example of the performativity of race or possibly of ‘post-race’. The paper will take a key instance when Obama put his own racial positioning on the stage, in response to a particular set of political events. Through an examination of his ‘A more perfect union’ speech in Philadelphia during his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination (18th March 2008), I want to consider the extent to which we can ‘trouble race’ in the same way that Judith Butler has argued for the troubling of gender. The campaign election of Barack Obama has inserted the concept of ‘post-race’ into popular discourse in a forceful way. This article will question what the theoretical literature, which might regard race to be ‘under-erasure’ rather than ‘overcome,’ can offer to an analysis of the positioning of Obama. This is important because, despite longstanding academic and activist insistence that ‘race’ is a social construction devoid of any inherent or essential meaning, the ontological status of ‘race’ remains in question. As the reaction to Barack Obama shows, race is something that we still appear to need to ‘know’ about each other (and perhaps particularly about those who are not ‘white’). Yet, as I will argue, the racialized performativity offered by Obama is far from clear-cut and suggests that a more complex analysis is required. This paper will first explore the ideas of being ‘beyond’ or ‘post’ race and then consider how the notion of gender performativity might be productively extended to race peformativity. Then it will return to the speech given by Barack Obama in the course of his nomination campaign to explore both the impossibility for some figures to step outside of race, but also the potential scope to re-fashion concepts of race and inheritance, and particularly their relation to the nation…

Read the entire article here.

Identity Politics: The Ambiguity of Race and the “End of Racism”

The Atlanta Post
2011-07-11

Ezinne Adibe

Professor and author Kwasi Konadu discusses identity politics and what it means to be African

One hundred years from now what weight will race and/or ethnicity have on our understanding of identity?  Are we moving towards a society where race will become so ambiguous that notions tied into race will become a thing of the past? The concept of a post-racial society seemed to gain further traction during the election of President Barack Obama, but as author Dr. Kwasi Konadu notes, there hasn’t been much of a post-racial anything in the years since President Obama’s election. Dr. Konadu recently shared his thoughts on identity, post-racialism, and what it means to be African.

Ezinne Adibe: How has your identity shaped your work?

Dr. Kwasi Konadu: My work been very personal in that a lot of my research has been shaped by my ancestry. For instance, it was after a number of years of doing my family history through family elders that a dream about my great-great-grandmother led me back to Ghana to find out more. That led to my dissertation in Ghana, which led to a decade of research and partnership in Ghana, another home of mine in the African world. So, indeed, identity shaped by ancestry has been critical to how I choose what I am interested in, how I approach those matters with a kind of passion, and always the quest for getting the story right.

Ezinne Adibe: I come across many conversations about identity, especially with regards to national identity. There are some that feel national identity is more important than racial or ethnic affiliation. What are your thoughts?

Dr. Konadu: If we make the matter of identity an either or question, whether it is the clan or the nation, in terms of how we define nations and nationalism, or it is some other kind of affiliation, I think we miss a very subtle but important point about how Africans, and other humans, have historically identified themselves. Humans tend to have concentric circles of a composite identity. So, at the same time I can be a father, a husband, a professor, a brother to my own biological kin or a brother in a communal sense. And there can be no conflict with either of those circles, because these identities are not in conflict but are expressions of a composite, whole identity. I think they become conflictual because of the historical experiences that brought Africans to whatever side of whatever ocean/sea they now find themselves. Whatever means by which Africans were exported from their homelands, they have endured a certain kind of transformation where blackness became the demonic inverse, that is, it became the opposite of Judeo-Christian whiteness, and blackness also became a synonym for Africaness. And so, it’s not surprising to find that many of our peoples worldwide, but certainly in North America, are offended if called African, because African, in their mind, is shorthand for this package of barbarism, backwardness, idol worshippers, lacking beauty and intelligence. All this is packaged into being African. So, who wants to be African?…

…Ezinne Adibe: There is another interesting conversation related to identity, which is this idea that we will all be mixed sometime in the future. There are a lot of people who say that it will be great once we can move to that point where race is so ambiguous, because then people won’t be racist. What are your thoughts on this post-racial idealism?

Dr. Konadu: Well, I’m sorry to disappoint the people that feel that way or have come to that conclusion. You can have racism without race…I’ll give you a historical note. In the 15th century Spain and Portugal, there were dominant and pejorative ideas about African peoples as savages, barbarians, non-Christians, and therefore heathens, and under Papal or Catholic doctrine these Africans could be enslaved. The concept of race wasn’t truly refined as we know it today, but there was racism. Take for instance, the first group of Africans taken from the Senegambia region, what is now Senegal and the Gambia, and transported to Portugal. They were stripped naked and paraded through the streets of the capital city, Lisbon. It was a spectacle. You can imagine, from the Africans’ perspective, the sheer terror of having all these white folks stare at you as kind of a voyeur, and especially with the belief these white folks were cannibals. That was the introduction of Africans into this and perhaps other early European societies. So, there were ideas about race and racism; however, race wasn’t fully refined, whereby it was linked to the institutional terror and injustices as we find today. But there was racism without race. So, racism need not race as an appendage in order to be real. You can have the end of race as the New York Times announced when Barack Obama was elected, “a post-racial society” (laughs). Since his election, whatever people think about him and his administration, African folks in Africa and in North America have suffered greatly. There is greater racial violence, whether it is the unleashing of these white supremacist groups and even allied Chicano Mexican groups terrorizing black folks. There is another kind of violence – economic violence. In this so-called recession, black folks have felt it the hardest, in housing, jobs, prisons, hospital and educational program closings, the poorest quality foods, criminalization, and so. The point is the quality of black folks lives has exponentially declined since his inauguration and since the New York Times announced a post-racial society. So, if that’s any cue that this is what post-racialism looks like, I don’t think African folks want anything to do with it….

Read the entire interview here.

Race Mixing a Religious Fraud

circa 1930-1960s
8 pages
Source: Digital Collections of the University of Southern Mississippi Libraries
USM Identifier: mus-mcc033

D. B. Red, (Author of the pamphlet, A Corrupt Tree Bringeth Forth Evil Fruit)

From the McCain (William D.) Pamphlet Collection; D. B. Red states that God implemented segregation after the flood and enforced it all through the Old Testament. He quotes the Bible to support his belief that segregation of races was ordained by God and that race-mixing is an instrument of the Devil. He also quotes Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln to support his view that racial integration is undesirable. Red also contends that religious leaders who support integration have been duped by an influx of Communist rhetoric that seeks to undermine the social structure of the United States.

Race Mixing A Religious Fraud

Race mixing not only disregards the age-long experience of man and constitutional guarantees, but as it is now taught, is a religious fraud. Many religious leaders have asked the Federal Government to reach over the heads of the states into homes to usurp the God-given right and duty of parents to give their children the benefit of the most wholesome surroundings in public schools. Approval is given to Block Busting integration which divides the value of residential property by two or three, and exposes people to all of the annoyance and dangers of slum and crime areas.

The indifference of church leaders to the fate of the victims of race mixing reminds this scribe of the hit and run drivers who never change their ways or look back at their victims. Some are worse than others but all of the larger denominations are pushing us down the Devil’s highway of racial integration and on toward national perdition.

Christ says: “YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN… BEHOLD I STAND AT THE DOOR AND KNOCK”, Church and State say: “YOU MUST BE INTEGRATED NOW; BEHOLD A BAYONET IS AT YOUR BACK.”

IS THIS SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, OR IS SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND CHRIST ?

God Introduces Multiple Races and Segregation

While the virgin earth spread her beauty and bounty in all directions, great evils arose among men, who reveled in sin and so vexed the Creator that He almost destroyed mankind. As He again sent man forth with the hope of producing much more righteous conditions, He introduced the multiple race plan. Have age-long results justified the wisdom of God as displayed in this crisis? Or has time justified the wisdom of those who have long ignored this plan and spread a blanket of perpetual blight and mixed races over much of the earth?

Every faculty of man as he was originally created is capable of both good and evil. Frightful evils are entagled with the desire for a happy future existence. Evil also arises from a loyalty to your own kind and an aversion to other kinds. Should we denounce these things and reject the wisdom of the Creator? Or should we seek to better understand His wisdom?

The efforts of religious leaders to lead and force men to accept racial integration are surprising, and become even more so when the communist attitude is known. In 1913, a communist living in England suggested the agitation of the race problem in the United States of America as a trouble-maker. Comrade Lenin said, “We will find our most fertile field for the infiltration of Marxism within the field of religion, because religious people are the most gullible and will accept almost anything if it is couched in religious terminology.” Soon the viper of racial integration was brought forth in robes of righteousness, and religious leaders have abundantly justified this statement of Lenin as to their gullibility. They freely misuse or ignore scripture in efforts to fit scriptural robes on this ancient abomination. It seems safe to assume that if God did err by the introduction of the multiple race plan, He would surely have been able to see it and would have at least relaxed in His demands for the adherence to this plan. The division of the land and the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel both tended to maintain racial divisions. The call of Abraham produced a racial subdivision and rigid segregation was used to preserve it. We find that God has always had to depend on minorities to carry His message. Perhaps He was wisely preparing in advance for this.

God Deals With Mixed People

There were natural and special penalties for integration. The commandments of Moses and Joshua clearly forbade mixing with the descendants of Ham. In strong, figurative language Joshua foretold the frightful price of disobedience- Quote Joshua 23:13: “They shall be snares and traps unto you and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the Lord your God hath given you.” In Ezra, chapters 9 and 10, and Nehemiah, chapters 9 through 13, we find that on discovery of mixed marriages a systematic check was made and a considerable number were required to give up their strange wives with any children that they may have had. “Also they separated from Israel all of the mixed multitude.” This was a clear-cut case of a special penalty. Others seem to have suffered a combination of penalties. In Genesis 26: 34-35 we find that Esau first took two Hittite wives “which were a grief of mind to Isaac and Rebecca.” In Obadiah 18 we find, “There shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau.” This came to pass centuries ago. Concerning Israel, Hosea said in 7:8-9, “Ephraim, he hath mixed himself among the people . . . Strangers hath devoured his strength and he knoweth it not.”…

…Who Plays the Sucker

In the time of Christ gambling was hoary with age. National bondage and individual slavery were great evils. Neither of these are condemned in the Bible. They are generally conceded to be evil. Race-mixing is not only often and severely condemned in the Bible, but is an age-long and incurable curse of the first magnitude. Of all the millions and billions of people who have borne the curse of blended blood and jumbled humanity, the mixers will only speak of the situation in Hawaii where they are said to have an easy fluid mixture of the races. They fail to note that communist influence has long been strong in the islands and that this fluid situation is a much sought goal of communism, since it facilitates the easy formation of communist cells, and leaves no coherent group to oppose them. Are these mixers as ignorant as they seem, or are they only presuming on the ignorance of others?…

Read the entire pamphlet here.

GIs and Fräuleins: The German-American Encounter in 1950s West Germany

University of North Carolina Press
December 2001
360 pages
6.125 x 9.25, 13 photos, 1 map, notes, bibl., index
Paper ISBN  978-0-8078-5375-7

Maria Höhn, Professor of History
Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York

With the outbreak of the Korean War, the poor, rural West German state of Rhineland-Palatinate became home to some of the largest American military installations outside the United States. In GIs and Frauleins, Maria Hohn offers a rich social history of this German-American encounter and provides new insights into how West Germans negotiated their transition from National Socialism to a consumer democracy during the 1950s.

Focusing on the conservative reaction to the American military presence, Hohn shows that Germany’s Christian Democrats, though eager to be allied politically and militarily with the United States, were appalled by the apparent Americanization of daily life and the decline in morality that accompanied the troops to the provinces. Conservatives condemned the jazz clubs and striptease parlors that Holocaust survivors from Eastern Europe opened to cater to the troops, and they expressed scorn toward the German women who eagerly pursued white and black American GIs. While most Germans rejected the conservative effort to punish as prostitutes all women who associated with American GIs, they vilified the sexual relationships between African American men and German women. Hohn demonstrates that German anxieties over widespread Americanization were always debates about proper gender norms and racial boundaries, and that while the American military brought democracy with them to Germany, it also brought Jim Crow.

Table of Contents

• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1 “… And Then the Americans Came Again”
• 2 Living with the New Neighbors
• 3 When Jim Crow Came to the German Heimat
• 4 Heimat in Turmoil
• 5 Controlling the “Veronikas” and “Soldiers’ Brides”
• 6 Keeping America at Bay
• 7 Punishing the “Veronikas”
• 8 The Kaiserslautern Steinstrasse Affair
• Conclusion
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index

Introduction

In October 1952, the German Bundestag declared a large stretch of Rhineland-Palatinate—a poor, rural state in the southwest of Germany—to be a moral disaster area.  The legislators resorted to this dramatic step because the buildup of American military personnel in West Germany in the wake of the Korean War had allegedly wrecked havoc in the provinces. The American troop deployment, they complained, instead of creating a bulwark against Soviet expansionism, had brought striptease parlors, prostitution, common-law marriages, and unprecedented levels of illegitimacy. The Christian Democratic legislators, who dominated the debate, were equally distressed to report that in one small town alone, 343 German women were neglecting their children because they were in the employ of the American occupation power. The counties of Birkenfeld and Kaiserslautern, home to the garrison communities Baumholder and Kaiserslautern, were identified as the key trouble spots. Convinced that the American-induced economic boom had rendered the rural population oblivious to the moral emergency, the conservative Christian Democrats demanded federal intervention. With great dismay, the Bundestag resolved that West Germany’s military rearmament underway in Rhineland-Palatinate needed to be accompanied by a moral rearmament of the state’s population.

Discovering this anxious Bundestag debate during the preliminary stages of my research significantly changed the direction of this book. When I first began my project on the American military in Rhineland-Palatinate, I set out to explore how West Germans had negotiated their transition from Nazism into consumer democracy during the 1950s. I had chosen my topic because I speculated that the extensive presence of American military personnel and their injection of the “American way of life” would produce a rich collection of sources to comment on those crucial founding years of the Federal Republic. My exploration of the German-American encounter was to provide insights into how economic, social, and cultural changes after 1945 played out in the everyday life of people. How did Germans, after the experience of Nazism, manage to establish a successful democracy in West Germany? Moreover, I hoped that the German-American encounter would reveal how Germans assessed the transformations in their lives. Would they agree with those historians who dismiss “Americanization” as an explanatory model by insisting that the transformation of German society after 1945 was part of a larger process of modernization that had been long underway and was merely disrupted by World War II and the postwar suffering? What would Germans living in close proximity to the American military bases have to say to the Westernization scholars who do not ignore America’s impact on postwar Germany but nonetheless stress that the Bonn Republic succeeded because West Germany’s political and cultural élites abandoned their resistance to the “Western” liberal tradition?…

…By exploring local reactions to the conservative project, I show that the moral rearmament of German society is only one aspect, albeit an important one, of the 1950s. By the second part of the decade, conservative observers in Rhineland-Palatinate provided exasperated accounts of their failure to keep the population from eagerly embracing the prosperity and social mobility that the American-induced economic boom entailed. Their accounts also bemoan the fact that the strict morality that the deeply conservative Christian Democratic state and federal governments were trying to enforce through the Christian welfare agencies, the police, and the courts did not play well in the provinces. Most Germans were unwilling to return to the rigid pre-Weimar sexual norms that conservatives wanted to reimpose. The unprecedented prosperity of the Korea Boom convinced all too many that the era of deprivation and self-sacrifice was over; indeed, the time had come to “live for once.” In light of their experience with Nazism, many Germans also found the conservative program intrusive and inappropriate for the new democracy. Consequently, the population rejected the conservative effort to stigmatize and punish as prostitutes all women who associated with American GIs. Notwithstanding the concerted efforts of the chruches and of state and federal ministries, even in the deepest provinces, attitudes toward premarital sexuality and women’s sexual expressiveness outside of marriage relaxed considerably by the later part of the decade.

However, this greater tolerance in sexual matters tells only part of the story. Germans negotiated this overall relaxation of sexual mores by vilifying as unacceptable the sexual relationships between African American men and German women. When Germans, in both East and West, read about the American garrison communities during the 1950s, the focus was increasingly on the “many” black GIs who met “sexually unrestrained” women in the bars that Eastern European Jews made available to them. The prostitution records of Baumholder and the press coverage of the garrison communities reveal that attitudes toward such relationships hardened considerably, especially after Germany regained sovereignty in 1955.

Historians of postwar Germany have only recently begun to explore how racial hierarchies continued to inform notions of German identity. Exciting new scholarship on German reactions to American popular culture and German policies toward the children born of German mothers and African American fathers make important contributions to the field. That scholarship also shows that it would be too simple to assume a straightforward continuity from Nazi racism to racial attitudes in the 1950s. A process of negotiation was at work as liberal policy makers, influenced by social science research in the United States, distanced themselves from the biologically based racial hierarchies of the past. While the language of eugenics disappeared, this did not mean that racial hierarchies ceased to matter. German policy makers, for example, drew on this psychologically based language of difference to condemn jazz and rock and roll for undermining proper class, race, and gender boundaries.

My book contributes to this work by expanding the exploration of German racial attitudes beyond those of politicians and policy makers to include such debates at the grassroots level. The fact that millions of black GIs have spent time in Germany since 1945 makes it clear that German racial debates after 1945 did not take place in a vacuum. Because of the national attention the garrison communities received throughout the 1950s—not just in Germany’s tabloid press—these debates on race also did not remain just local affairs but engaged the country as a whole.

We know from Heide Fehrenbach’s important work that during the late 1940s and the 1950s the German liberal discourse on race shifted from a preoccupation with Jews to an overwhelming concern with blacks. However, in the garrison towns, that shift is less manifest for a number of reasons. Most importantly, debates on race are not driven by the self-conscious efforts of national policy makers to overcome the shameful Nazi past. Just the same, despite the murderous rage of the Nazi regime, Jews were not “absent” from German communities or German consciousness during the 1950s. Germans in these communities encountered Eastern European Jews and American blacks simultaneously and on a daily basis. Consequently, German debates on race were marked by the coexistence of separate but also overlapping discourses on “racial others.”

This study is also a first attempt to argue that German racial attitudes after 1945 can be understood only if they are examined in light of their face-to-face interaction with those of the American military. Black GIs, and not just those from the Jim Crow South, experienced in Germany a tolerance and acceptance unknown to them in their own country. Their status, first as conquerors and then as occupation soldiers, made possible unprecedented encounters with white Germans. In My American Journey, General Colin Powell gave voice to that experience when he recalled his service in Germany in 1958: “[For] black GIs, especially those out of the South, Germany was a breath of freedom—they could go where they wanted, eat where they wanted, and date whom they wanted, just like other people. The dollar was strong, the beer good, and the German people friendly, since we were all that stood between them and the Red hordes. War, at least the Cold War in Germany, was not hell.” Yet the record also shows that side-by-side with this tolerance existed a profound unease and often even resentment over the presence of black GIs. Nowhere were the limits of German racial tolerance more forcefully expressed than in the condemnation evoked by the relationships between black GIs and white German women.

Observing the deep reluctance, if not outright opposition, in the American military toward the relationships between German women and black American soldiers convinced many Germans, and not just conservatives, that their own racial prejudices should not mark them as Nazis. Thus, when Germans during the 1950s condemned the relationships between German women and African American soldiers, they cited the model of racial segregation of their American mentor as informing their own convictions. Germans were able to do so with ease because American opposition to interracial sexuality and interracial marriage was so similar to their own pre-Nazi models of racial exclusion. Thus Germans could reject the racial excesses of Nazism while at the same time invoking racial hierarchies of exclusion that were based in timeless laws of nature and tied firmly to the Western liberal tradition…

Read the entire Introduction here.

“Germany’s ‘Brown Babies’ Must Be Helped! Will You?”: U.S. Adoption Plans for Afro-German Children, 1950-1955

Callaloo
Volume 26, Number 2 (Spring 2003)
pages 342-362
DOI: 10.1353/cal.2003.0052
E-ISSN: 1080-6512 Print ISSN: 0161-2492

Yara-Colette Lemke Muniz de Faria

This essay explores the debate that arose around the adoption of Black German children by African American parents and the subsequent immigration of these children to the United States. Using a comparative approach, the article probes the underlying internal social and political controversies in postwar Germany and the United States that led to and accompanied these events, concluding that both the plans for and practical implementation of the adoption of these Black German children abroad was an complex and contradictory attempt to solve the “problem” a German-born Black population was seen to pose.

Scattered throughout Europe today there are thousands of “war orphans”—children of European girls and American soldiers who loved and left. Hundreds of these homeless children are the offspring of Negro soldiers and their mulatto status makes adoption by European families extremely unlikely. But in America there are hundreds of childless Negro couples who wish to adopt these “war babies” and bring them to the U.S. Up to now government red tape has prevented all but a trickle from being adopted. (“German War Babies”)

In January 1951, an article was published in the African-American magazine Ebony with the above-cited headline. The article chronicled the story of an African-American teacher, Margaret Ethel Butler, who since 1947 had been attempting to adopt two Afro-German children and arrange their immigration to the United States. On 4 October 1951, nine months after the article appeared, Margaret E. Butler fas finally able to welcome her much longed-for adopted children at the Chicago airport. These two German children, born of African-American occupation soldiers and German women, are considered the first such children to be adopted and arrive in the U.S. after the war.

The adoption of these two Afro-German children (a boy and a girl of five and six years of age) who, until their departure for the U.S., had lived in a Rheingau orphanage was the result of a bureaucratic battle waged by Margaret E. Butler over a period of many years. It was in 1947 that she first learned of the discrimination facing many Afro-German children in Germany through an article in the Chicago Tribune, at which point she decided to adopt two of these children. Her initial inquiries, including a journey to the children’s orphanage in Germany, were followed by countless requests and petitions, as well as further visits to Germany. Soon Margaret E. Butler became known as the Butler Case, a phenomenon widely documented in both the West German and the African-American press.

In the following pages, will explore several aspects of the public response to this group of German occupation children in Germany and the U.S. I begin with an examination of the motives which led German and American organizations and individuals in both countries to perceive Afro-German children as potential adoptees for the U.S. The first section looks at the crucial role of the Black press and the NAACP…

Read or purchase the article here.
Also read, “Reflections on the ‘Brown Babies’ in Germany: the Black Press and the NAACP,” in The Civil Rights Struggle, African-American GIs, and Germany.

Inclusionary Discrimination: Pigmentocracy and Patriotism in the Dominican Republic

Political Psychology
Volume 22, Issue 4 (December 2001)
pages 827–851
DOI: 10.1111/0162-895X.00264

Jim Sidanius, Professor of Psychology and African and African American Studies
Harvard University

Yesilernis Pena

Mark Sawyer, Associate Professor of African American Studies and Political Science
University of California, Los Angeles

This study explored the nature of racial hierarchy and the connection between racial identity and Dominican patriotism using a questionnaire given to an in situ sample in the Dominican Republic. The analyses compared the contradictory expectations of the “racial democracy” (or “Iberian exceptionalism”) thesis and social dominance theory. Results showed that despite the very high level of racial intermarriage in the Dominican Republic, there was strong evidence of a “pigmentocracy,” or group-based social hierarchy based largely on skin color. Furthermore, despite a slight tendency for people to give slightly higher status ratings to their own “racial” category than were given to them by members of other “racial” categories, this pigmentocracy was highly consensual across the racial hierarchy. These results were consistent with the expectations of social dominance theory. However, in contrast to similar analyses in the United States and Israel, these Dominican findings showed no evidence that members of different “racial” categories had different levels of patriotic attachment to the nation. Also in contrast to recent American findings, there was no evidence that Dominican patriotism was positively associated with anti-black racism, social dominance orientation, negative affect toward other racial groups, or ethnocentrism, regardless of the “racial” category one belonged to. These latter results were consistent with the racial democracy thesis. The theoretical implications of these somewhat conflicting findings are discussed.

Read the entire article here.

Into the Arms of America: The Korean Roots of International Adoption

The University of Chicago
August 2008
248 pages
Publication Number: AAT 3322621
ISBN: 9780549742289

Arissa Hyun Jung Oh

A Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the division of Social Sciences in candidacy for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Department of History

This dissertation locates the origins of the phenomenon of international adoption in Korea in the 1950s, when Americans began adopting mixed-race ‘GI babies’ produced through liasions between Korean women and foreign military personnel during the Korean War. Seeing no other solution to the existence of these children than their mass emigration abroad, the Korean government cooperated with allies in Korea and in the United States to establish an intercountry adoption system.

Americans had adopted children from Europe and Japan prior to the Korean War, but there are a number of reasons why intercountry took off from Korea. First, the supply of unwanted mixed-race GI babies in South Korea converged with a demand for them in the United States. The newly established Republic of South Korea sought to to redefine itself through a nationalism centered in large part on its sense of itself as an racially homogeneous nation and was therefore eager to send its mixed-race children overseas. At the same time, Americans expressed interest in adopting Korean GI babies for a number of reasons: humanitarianism, a shortage of adoptable children in the U.S., or because they wished to avoid the doctrinal investigations of social workers required under state adoption laws.

Second, a ‘culture religion’ or ‘civic religion’ that I call Christian Americanism emerged in the 1950s to power the early movement to adopt Korean GI babies. Christian Americanism combined patriotism with vaguely Christian principles to form a powerful ideology that promoted U.S. responsibility in the new world of the Cold War. The adoption of Korean GI babies became a Christian Americanist missionary project, and although not all adoptive parents of children from Korea were Christian Americanists, the language of Christian Americanism became the language of the Korean adoption movement. Christian Americanist adopters saw adopting a Korean GI baby as a way to participate in their country’s new Cold War project of proving its racial liberalism and winning the hearts and minds of newly independent countries around the world. Third, Harry Holt, a farmer from Oregon, emerged as a leader of the Christian Americanist Korean adoption movement. Holt founded the Holt Adoption Program in 1956, made Korean adoption available to the masses, and was a crucial catalyst in the establishment and development of international adoption.

In the early 1960s, the composition of the Korean homeless-child population changed such that mixed-race children no longer represented the majority of the Korean children being adopted internationally. The institutions, procedures and laws that had been erected to facilitate the removal of mixed-race children became a convenient system through which to send full-blooded children abroad.

Korean adoption has been a dynamic and ever-changing phenomenon reflecting some of the major trends in Cold War politics as well as shifting ideas about race, family and nation in both Korea and the United States. What began as a race-based evacuation evolved into a Cold War missionary project, and has now become an increasingly common way for Americans to build their families.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• VOLUME ONE
  • LIST OF TABLES
  • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
  • ABSTRACT
  • INTRODUCTION
  • CHAPTER 1. Soldiers, Missionaries and the Kids of Korea
  • CHAPTER 2. Creating Intercountry Adoption
  • CHAPTER 3. A New Kind of Missionary Work: Christian Americanism and the Adoption of Korean GI Babies
• VOLUME TWO
  • CHAPTER 4. Making Orphans, Making Families
  • CHAPTER 5. Harry Holt Versus ‘The Welfare’: The Fight Over Proxy Adoption
  • CHAPTER 6. The Turn In the Road
  • APPENDIX U. S. Immigration Laws Pertaining to Korean Adoption
  • BIBLIOGRAPHY

LIST OF TABLES

Purchase the dissertation here.