|
|
|
|
CONTRIBUTORS:
|
|
|
INSTITUTION ID:
|
|
|
SERIES TITLE:
|
|
|
YEAR:
|
2005
|
|
PUB TYPE:
|
Working Paper/Manuscript
|
|
WORKING PAPER NUMBER:
|
None
|
|
PAGES:
|
|
|
SUBJECT(S):
|
Legal History of the Color Line
|
|
DISCIPLINE:
|
History
|
|
HTTP:
|
http://backintyme.com/Essay050501.htm
|
|
LANGUAGE:
|
English
|
|
PUB ID:
|
103-415-320
(Last edited on
2005/04/30 18:59:45 GMT-6)
|
|
SPONSOR(S):
|
|
|
ABSTRACT:
This essay examines, in four topics, the events of those decades that gave rise to the notions of endogamous group membership that are still in force today. _Terminology Changed_ shows that the word “Colored,” no longer denoted an intermediate group in the Franco-American culture of the Gulf Coast but became a polite euphemism for any member of the Black endogamous group anywhere. _White Children Consigned to Blackness_ shows that, by far, the strictest enforcement of the one-drop rule in these years was for school segregation, not intermarriage. _White Adults Challenged to Defend Their Whiteness_ offers a slight viewpoint shift to reveal that the one-drop rule did not affect Blacks at all—it targeted only Whites. _African-American Complicity_ shows that far from resisting or challenging the one-drop rule, members of the African-American ethnic community, especially its leadership, embraced and enforced it from their side of the color line.
|
|
|
|
STATISTICS
|
|
Click on # to view
|
|
Citations
|
|
0
|
|
References
|
|
0
|
|
Comments
|
|
0
|
|
Quality
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
Interest
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
View(er)s
|
|
2/466
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Prev |
Next |
|
