Monday, March 19, 2007

A Clear Case of Racial Kidnapping.

Was Captain Michael Healy really the Black Hero of the North? Was he really the first Black captain in Coast Guard history? No, it would most probably have been Joe Jones, Earl Brown or Bobbie Wilkes in about 1988, well into the later part of the 20th Century.
This was a clear case of racial kidnapping by the United States Coast Guard. The United States Coast Guard historians wanted to claim African-American "trophy" officers of high rank earlier in Coast Guard history despite the fact that discrimination in the Coast Guard and other segments of American society prevented Blacks from gaining entrance to the service. Also, the lack of educational opportunities prevented real "Blacks" from creating an impressive "resume" in the 19th century. In the 17th Century it was a crime to teach a Black man or child to read and write. The Quakers were the first to apply “non-violent direct action” in protest of these flagrantly racist laws.

Captain Michael Morris Healy's memory was recently tarnished by the United States Coast Guard, which named an Icebreaker, the U.S.C.G.C. HEALY (launched in 1997) after him. Normally, it is a great honor to have a ship named after you. It is an insult, however, when the ship is named after you so the U.S. Coast Guard can honor a "Black" hero who was really Irish-American, at least 3/4 white, and identified as both white and Irish. In this case, someone told a group of black schoolkids at Virgil Grissom Junior High School in Queens, New York that they had a "Black" hero in Captain Healy. The black kids initiated a letter-writing campaign to get the Coast Guard to name a ship after Michael Healy. Now, these kids may be flattered by the idea that a person of obvious Caucasian phenotype shares their "race," but it is in fact a racial insult they are incapable of recognizing:
The Healy family's achievements do not show what "Blacks" could do in the 19th century because they were NOT BLACK.
The overwhelmingly European ancestry of the Healy family does not "prove" the biological equality of "Blacks." People will tacitly assume (as they always have) that "superior white blood" gave them their intelligence.
This is a prime example of the "liberal racism" that condemns the Michael Healy as "Black" on the basis of the "One Drop Rule" while pretending to be anti-racist and sympathetic.

Captain Michael Healy had more in common with President John F. Kennedy (both Irish American catholics) than he did with Frederick Douglas, of Nat Turner, Denmark Vessey, or even Adam Clayton Powell.

According to the One Drop Rule Tiger Woods is Black. No one in the American sports hierarchy could accept the fact that a Black man could play golf so well as to wins the prestigious Masters Tournament back to back successive times. A young Black multi-millionaire must be classified as something else. At best, one-eighth of his gene pool comes from Caucasians (Dutch), but in the 1980's a new Racial Category was added to the Census Codes. It was multi-racial. Tiger Woods in the spirit of the times, went them one better. He classified himself. He affably refers to his ethnic make-up as Cablinasian (a portmanteau of Caucasian, Black, American-Indian, and Asian), a term he coined himself. Woods' father, Earl Woods, was a Vietnam War veteran and a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, and was of mixed African American (50 percent), Chinese (25 percent) and Native American (25 percent) ancestry. He was the chairman of his son's charitable foundation (the Tiger Woods Foundation) before his death at age 74 on May 3, 2006, following a lengthy battle with cancer. Woods' mother, Kultida Woods, is originally from Thailand, and is of mixed Thai (50 percent), Chinese (25 percent), and Dutch (25 percent) ancestry. This makes Woods himself one-quarter Chinese, one-quarter Thai, one-quarter African, one-eighth Native American, and one-eighth Dutch.

"Can the Black man change his skin,
or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil."
— Jeremiah 13:23
No, but a Tiger can become a mixed race multi-millionaire and schmooze with The Speaker of the House, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, a grandmother of six. Pelosi was born Nancy D'Alesandro to Italian-American parents in Baltimore, Maryland.[1] The youngest of six children.
Pelosi voted for the No Child Left Behind Act in May of 2001, which instituted testing to track students' progress and authorized an increase in overall education spending.

Tiger was born Eldrick Woods in Cypress, California, he was nicknamed “Tiger”. Woods became generally known by that name and by the time he had achieved national prominence in junior and amateur golf was simply known as "Tiger Woods."

Despite the One-Drop Rule being illegal (ever since the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 overturned the Virginia Racial Integrity Act), as recently as 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ODR by refusing to hear a case against Louisiana’s "racial" classification criteria as applied to Susie Phipps (479 U.S. 1002). In addition, several authors and journalists have found it very profitable to "out" as black famous historical mulattoes and whites, who were regarded as white in their society, who self-identified as such, and who were culturally European-American, merely because they acknowledged having (often slight) African ancestry (Anatole Boyard, Patrick Francis Healy, Michael Morris Healy, Jr., Sir Peter Ustinov, Calvin Clark Davis, John James Audubon, Mother Henriette Delille — a Louisiana Creole).
Not only does the One-Drop Rule apply to no other group than American Blacks, but apparently the rule is unique in that it is found only in the United States and not in any other nation in the world. In fact, definitions of who is black vary quite sharply from country to country, and for this reason people in other countries often express consternation about our definition. James Baldwin relates a revealing incident that occurred in 1956 at the Conference of Negro-African Writers and Artists held in Paris. The head of the delegation of writers and artists from the United States was John Davis. The French chairperson introduced Davis and then asked him why he considered himself Negro, since he certainly did not look like one. Baldwin wrote, "He is a Negro, of course, from the remarkable legal point of view which obtains in the United States, but more importantly, as he tried to make clear to his interlocutor, he was a Negro by choice and by depth of involvement--by experience, in fact."
The phenomenon known as "passing as white" is difficult to explain in other countries or to foreign students. Typical questions are: "Shouldn't Americans say that a person who is passing as white is white, or nearly all white, and has previously been passing as black?" or "To be consistent, shouldn't you say that someone who is one-eighth white is passing as black?" or "Why is there so much concern, since the so-called blacks who pass take so little negroid ancestry with them?" Those who ask such questions need to realize that "passing" is much more a social phenomenon than a biological one, reflecting the nation's unique definition of what makes a person black. The concept of "passing" rests on the one-drop rule and on folk beliefs about race and miscegenation, not on biological or historical fact.
The black experience with passing as white in the United States contrasts with the experience of other ethnic minorities that have features that are clearly non-caucasoid. The concept of passing applies only to blacks--consistent with the nation's unique definition of the group. A person who is one-fourth or less American Indian or Korean or Filipino is not regarded as passing if he or she intermarries and joins fully the life of the dominant community, so the minority ancestry need not be hidden. It is often suggested that the key reason for this is that the physical differences between these other groups and whites are less pronounced than the physical differences between African Blacks and whites, and therefore are less threatening to whites. However, keep in mind that the one-drop rule and anxiety about passing originated during slavery and later received powerful reinforcement under the Jim Crow system.
For the physically visible groups other than blacks, miscegenation promotes assimilation, despite barriers of prejudice and discrimination during two or more generations of racial mixing. As noted above, when ancestry in one of these racial minority groups does not exceed one-fourth, a person is not defined solely as a member of that group. Masses of white European immigrants have climbed the class ladder not only through education but also with the help of close personal relationships in the dominant community, intermarriage, and ultimately full cultural and social assimilation. Young people tend to marry people they meet in the same informal social circles. For visibly non-caucasoid minorities other than blacks in the United States, this entire route to full assimilation is slow but possible.
For all persons of any known black lineage, however, assimilation is blocked and is not promoted by miscegenation. Barriers to full opportunity and participation for blacks are still formidable, and a fractionally black person cannot escape these obstacles without passing as white and cutting off all ties to the black family and community. The pain of this separation, and condemnation by the black family and community, are major reasons why many or most of those who could pass as white choose not to. Loss of security within the minority community, and fear and distrust of the white world are also factors.
It should now be apparent that the definition of a black person as one with any trace at all of black African ancestry is inextricably woven into the history of the United States. It incorporates beliefs once used to justify slavery and later used to buttress the castelike Jim Crow system of segregation. Developed in the South, the definition of "Negro" (now Black) spread and became the nation's social and legal definition. Because Blacks are defined according to the one-drop rule, they are a socially constructed category in which there is wide variation in racial traits and therefore not a race group in the scientific sense. However, because that category has a definite status position in the society it has become a self-conscious social group with an ethnic identity.
The One-Drop Rule has long been taken for granted throughout the United States by whites and Blacks alike, and the federal courts have taken "judicial notice" of it as being a matter of common knowledge. State courts have generally upheld the one-drop rule, but some have limited the definition to one thirty-second or one-sixteenth or one-eighth black ancestry, or made other limited exceptions for persons with both Indian and Black ancestry. Most Americans seem unaware that this definition of Blacks is extremely unusual in other countries, perhaps even unique to the United States, and that Americans define no other minority group in a similar way. . . .
We must first distinguish racial traits from cultural traits, since they are so often confused with each other. As defined in physical anthropology and biology, races are categories of human beings based on average differences in physical traits that are transmitted by the genes not by blood. Culture is a shared pattern of behavior and beliefs that are learned and transmitted through social communication. An ethnic group is a group with a sense of cultural identity, such as Czech or Jewish Americans, but it may also be a racially distinctive group. A group that is racially distinctive in society may be an ethnic group as well, but not necessarily. Although racially mixed, most blacks in the United States are physically distinguishable from whites, but they are also an ethnic group because of the distinctive culture they have developed within the general American framework.



Blogger ichbinalj said...

A. D. Powell says in: When Are Irish-Americans Not Good Enough to Be Irish-American?
"Racial Kidnapping" and the Case of the Healy Family.

Consider the following family history:
Michael Morris Healy, an Irish immigrant, arrives in the United States around 1815 and establishes a plantation near Macon, Georgia. Healy and his mulatto common-law wife, Eliza Clark Healy, have 10 children. All of the children are sent North to be educated, baptized as Catholics, and leave any social disabilities of Georgia behind them. The children achieve great success as Irish-Americans:
• James Augustine Healy became Bishop of Portland, Maine
• Patrick Francis Healy became the rector then President of Georgetown University (1873-1881).
• Michael Morris Healy, Jr. joined the United States Revenue Cutter Service, becoming a celebrated sea captain, the sole representative of the U.S. government in the vast reaches of Alaska.
• Alexander Sherwood Healy also became a priest, director of the seminary in Troy, New York and rector of the Cathedral in Boston
• Three sisters became nuns, one a Mother Superior.
Now, it must be emphasized that the Healy offspring were accepted as Irish American and "white" (whatever that means). The positions they obtained could not have been theirs if they had been black or even dark-skinned. Many other "white" people who knew about the Healys' mixed-race origins accepted them as Irish-Americans. Are the Healys therefore entitled to be counted among the ranks of Irish-Americans and included in Irish-American history?
Not according to "black" elites and their "white liberal" allies. Years after their deaths, the Healy family is being claimed as "black" because of their achievements. As in the case of Anatole Broyard, the late New York Times book critic and essayist, if they can't claim you when you're alive and fighting, the hyenas try to "kidnap" your memory after you're dead. James and Francis Healy have been betrayed by the Catholic Church they served so faithfully because insecure "black Catholics" want to claim "trophy" clergymen of high rank despite the fact that discrimination and lack of educational opportunities prevented real "blacks" from creating an impressive "resume" in the 19th century. James Healy is now being described as the first "black" American to be ordained a priest and the first "black" bishop. Georgetown University now claims that Francis Patrick Healy (photo right) was the first "African American" president of a predominately "white" university and the first "black" to obtain a PhD.. Some gratitude the Catholic Church has shown! It has insulted the memory of James and Francis Healy by effectively stating that they were not good enough for their Irish-American heritage but only fit to "improve" the "black race" with their "white blood." The Healys must be turning over in their graves!

4:24 PM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

In "Racial Identity and the Case of Captain Michael Healy, USRCS," by James M. O'Toole, director of the archives program at University of Massachusetts, Boston.. (Quarterly of the National Archives & Records Administration, Fall 1997, vol. 29, No. 3)
O'Toole begins with a confrontation between Captain Healy and two sailors he was disciplining. He notes that they called him a "God damned Irishman." O'Toole is very upset that the sailors didn't call Captain Healy a "N-word." This seems to him the only natural thing to call Captain Healy. O'Toole throughout the article, projects his own racism and devotion to the "one drop" myth on 19th century Americans who obviously didn't share his devotion to white racial "purity."
O'Toole's racist devotion to the "One Drop" Rule blinds him to racial reality in the 19th century. He assumes that the "One Drop" Rule was law and universally accepted by "whites." It wasn't. Any research into racial classification laws in the 19th century would have shown him that various degrees of "Negro blood" were accepted into the "white race," even in the Deep South. Also, the combination of a person's looks and the reputation he had established were all taken into consideration in determining whether one was "white" or not. It is obvious that Captain Healy and his siblings succeeded in establishing themselves as second-generation Irish Americans. O'Toole cannot bear this and insists that the Healy siblings were really "African Americans." He also calls their mother, Eliza, an "African American" even though her ancestry was at least half European.
O'Toole also claims that all "whites" believed in "mulatto inferiority" or the doctrine that mixed-race people are biologically inferior to BOTH or ALL "pure" parental groups. He is too ignorant to understand that this doctrine was created as a defense of slavery by pro-slavery intellectuals who wanted to counter the Northern anti-slavery argument that, if slavery is justified on the basis of "race," then "white" slaves should be automatically free because the Negro racial "taint" had been effectively bred out of the line. Lawrence Tenzer explains the origins of this doctrine very well in his book The Forgotten Cause of the Civil War: A New Look at the Slavery Issue. O'Toole would do well to sit at Tenzer's feet and learn something. O'Toole follows the usual liberal excuse of claiming that "society" defined the Healy family as "Black," but expresses wonderment at the fact that "whites" who knew about Captain Healy's mixed ancestry still treated him as "white." O'Toole is amazed that establishing a "white" identity was so easy for the Healys:
The apparent ease with which they made the transition from black to white is striking. Hell, any white-identified multiracial could have told him that! First, they didn't start out as "Black." All things would be made clear if he would stop listening to and promoting "Black" propaganda. O'Toole is racist because he accepts the myth that the Healys' real identity was "Black" and that they were only "passing" for white and Irish American. Even though, like so many liberals, O'Toole acknowledges that "Group boundaries are more fluid than we often suppose," he clearly accepts and endorses the "One Drop"Rule, passing it off as biological and social reality:
Where the Healys are remembered today, it is as African Americans; several of them are now celebrated as the "first Black" achievers in their fields. They themselves, however, recoiled from such an identification. Wherever possible, they sought a white identity...

4:26 PM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

The Healys embraced the identity that they believed best defined them. The Irish American identity certainly described the Healys well - far better than any false "Black" identity. Does O'Toole really believe that the "white race" is "pure" or totally free from the "taint" of the "race" in whose equality he professes to believe? O'Toole also accepts the "liberal" nonsense that a "white" identity is merely an attempt to escape from "racism" and that the Healys would have cheerfully accepted a "Black" identity if there had been no anti-black discrimination. Tell me, in a world free of anti-Semitism, would Jews voluntary call themselves "non-Aryans" or "kikes" or any other term invented to degrade them? Of course not; the question would be considered ridiculous. Why, therefore, do liberal and "black" elites insist that, in a prejudice-free world, people would cheerfully accept a racially degraded identity for themselves. Such idiocy constitutes a total rejection of logic.
Captain Healy married Mary Ann Roach, herself the daughter of Irish immigrants. O'Toole's racism keeps him still amazed that a "white" identity was passed on to their son:
He repeatedly referred to white settlers [in Alaska] as "our people," and was even able to pass this racial identity on to a subsequent generation. His teenage son Fred, who accompanied his father on a voyage in 1883, scratched his name into a rock on a remote island above the Arctic Circle, proudly telling his diary that he was the first "white boy" to do so.
Imagine that! O'Toole can't understand how a boy with a white-identified Irish quadroon father and a "pure" Irish mother could presume to call himself "white" instead of some "Black" nonsense. O'Toole appears to be really concerned about those polluting "Black drops" contaminating his "whiteness." He apparently doesn't want to share his Irish American identity with people contaminated by the blood of the "race" he claims to champion.
O'Toole acknowledges that Captain Healy experienced prejudice for being Irish and Catholic, but he seems to be so disappointed that the "N-word" insult never pops up to put the uppity quadroon in his place. Indeed, O'Toole's liberal racist contention that the Healy family's Irish Catholic identity was mere social climbing to escape discrimination is even more ridiculous when you realize that, in the 19th century, both Irish and Catholics faced massive discrimination. If the Healys wanted to social climb, they could have become white Protestants.
The "racial kidnapping" of the Healy family is an important example of why the "liberal racist" assumption that a publicly-identified European heritage is somehow "too good" for those non-Hispanics "tainted" by "Black blood" must be openly and defiantly challenged. We must end this racial "rape." If the Healy family can be violated in death, it can happen to anyone.

4:27 PM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

CHARLIE said: Let's get the story right from the words of Capt. Healy himself in a letter he wrote to his sister indicating that he wanted to tell the truth of their Black heritage. His sister, however, emphatically retorted not to do so. This letter is public record and can be obtained from the Civilian Ph.D who heads The U.S. Coast Guard Historian's Office. Office hours (0700-1600). Thus, the previous rhetoric from previous blogger re: "racial kidnaping" of the Healy family” needs to chill. My suggestion is to get the facts first prior listing an emotional and rather boring diatribe of (insipid) innuendos. As a retired U.S. Coast Guard Public Affairs Officer, I had the opportunity to see the letter.

3:04 PM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

Thanks Charlie,
I am sure you are correct. Surely there is no need to verify the letter, even though it would be barred from admission into evidence in a court of law, because of the "Dead Man Statue", and the fact that it is hearsay. Since you are a retired Public Affairs Officer, I know you are experienced at getting the facts, verifying the authenticity of your source, and placing them in the proper context. And I know you took into consideration that Ole Hell Roaring Mike Healy was a hard drinking man. And I know this letter was not written during a drunken stupor, or a moment of lament for walking on one side of the "color line" more often than the other.
Nevertheless, thank you for your dedication to getting the story straight and your zeal for ferreting out the latest and the best evidence. However, I will not pass on to the PhD candidate who wrote that emotional and boring diatribe that you found it little more than insipid inuendos.
Keep searching,
With all humility,

3:07 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home