Historically, the term “Black” has been used to categorize people of darker hue or people with African descent. However, different cultures have given different meanings based on different perspectives. Black is often viewed based on two definitions; ethnicity and race. Ethnicity refers to an ethnic group or a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, on the basis of a real or a presumed common genealogy or ancestry. Whereas, the term race refers to the concept of dividing people into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of physical characteristics. Nevertheless, historically there has never been a unified group of people to identify themselves as “black”. The racial/ ethnic classification of the term black was created politically to subjugate a group of people based on a common experience of racism and oppression.
Ethnic groups distinguish themselves differently from one time period to another. They typically seek to define themselves but also are defined by the stereotypes of dominant groups. Races are assumed to be distinguished by skin color, facial type, etc. However, the scientific basis of racial distinctions is very weak. Most scientific studies show many changes in racial identity over time, and cross-over traits among races. Some ethnic groups also share linguistic or religious traits, while others share a common group history but not a common language or religion[i]. Scientific measures of race are exceedingly problematic to verify. Most racial categories are defined by governments not by scientists.
Stuart Hall in his work “New Ethnicities” illustrates the term “Black” was coined as a way of referencing the common experience of racism and marginalization in Britain. Based on this time period in Britain, African-Americans, Africans, Afro- Caribbean, and South Asians were all referred to as “Black”[ii]. Hall goes on to say that “Black” is essentially a politically and culturally constructed category. What Hall is trying to say is that being “Black” was not based on physical appearance, but it was determined by your status in that society and how you were viewed by that culture. Hall also states, the black subject cannot be represented without reference to the dimensions of class, gender, sexuality, and ethnicity[iii]. This can be analyzed by saying that phenotypically no one was seen as “Black” without certain elements to substantiate that classification.
Heidi Safia Mirza in her work “Black British Feminism” defined and analyzed Black British Feminism. Mirza put the element of gender into this political description of “Black”. Mirza explains the construction of a national British identity is built upon a notion of racial belonging, and upon a hegemonic white ethnicity that never speaks its presence. You can be “British” or “Black” but not both. She defines being “Black” in Britain is about a state of “becoming” racialized and a process of consciousness, when your color becomes the defining factor about who you are[iv]. What she is saying is that your “Black” identity is determined by how society sees you and how that is correlated to how you see yourself. This “double consciousness” embodies the “Black” experience in Europe during this time period. The author further explains the personal identity of “Black” remains in a contested space and it embodies the personalized struggles for those who are named “Black” including Asians, Chinese, and the mixed races[v].
According to Paul Gilroy’s work “Small Acts: Thoughts on the Politics of Black Cultures” he analyzes the political birth of the concept of racial taxonomy. Gilroy looks at the politics of race from two different angles. First, he maps out the changing contours of racist ideologies and the semantic fields in which they operate. Second, he looks at the history of social groups and how they recognize themselves in terms of race[vi]. Gilroy’s methodology is to compare and analyze the different causations of racial concepts and how they are used based on the subjective history of social groups though the lenses of racial politics. Based on Gilroy’s work races are not simple expressions of biological or cultural sameness, they are simply imagined. They are socially and politically constructed and the contingent processes from which they emerge may be tied to equally uneven patterns of class formation to which they contribute[vii]. What Gilroy is saying is that political and economic relations are more of a determining factor that determines race more than shared experiences.
“Dropping Anchor, Setting Sail” by Jacqueline Brown Nassy embodies the concept of “Blackness” being politically created. Nassy illustrates the consequent dilemmas of Black identity from the perspective of Liverpool England which is home of one of the oldest black communities in Britain. She analyzes “Black” racial politics and identity as it enacts of English cultural premises[viii]. A major point that she brought out in her book was the concept that racial knowledge is embedded in discourses of place and locality. Which means the concept of race is created based on your environment and social interactions of your culture. Nassy’s work is also significant because she explains how the idea of race is experienced and constructed variously according to different geographies. This is essential in understanding the concept of race because “Blackness” is not an objective universal concept. It is not only culturally subjective, but it is geographically subject.
However there are major problems with Nassy’s work in the context of race. For example, Brown tends to interpret “blackness” in a particularly Americanist frame, reducing the category to people of African descent. Nassy sees “blackness” from the perspective of Africans, Caribbean, and Liverpool-born blacks[ix]. What is missing from this approach is a rigorous consideration of how blackness as a social category in Britain has been anchored less in biological-racial determinism (i.e. “people of African descent”) and more in political affiliation. Thus South Asians have long been “read” as “black” in Britain, regardless of whether or not they are understood to be “people of African descent.” Nassy makes an obligatory acknowledgement of this fact, yet chooses to limit blackness in Americanist terms.
The ambiguity of “blackness” can be seen in African American culture. Whether one wants to identify themselves as “Black”, “African-American”, “Negro”, or “Afro-American” most of these terms are Eurocentric and were created as political labels to demoralize a group of people. Historically, people of African descent have been limited from self-identification and reduced to derogatory European classification. The word Africa is derived from the Greek word “Afrike” meaning “without cold”. The word “Negro” is Spanish for black, but it was meant to be given to a people because they were “culturally dead”. The terminology of “African-American” simply means “Africanized American”, but in reality blacks in America are “Americanized Africans”.
In summary, the racial/ ethnic classification of the term “Black” was created politically to subjugate a group of people based on a common experience of racism and oppression. “Blackness” is very subjective concept and can be internalized differently based on geographic locations. Ethnicity of being “Black” connotes shared cultural traits and a shared group history. The race concept of being “Black” refers to presumed shared biological or genetic traits, whether actual or asserted. Most people view “Blackness” in the terms of ethnicity or race, but from what our authors have illustrated being “Black” is more complex. “Black” is a political term that personifies the unified struggles of “non-white” people in a general geographic location. The historical and cultural experiences of “Black” subjects can subjectively be seen as the “Black Experience”. However, the unifying framework that is trying to build up that identity is still based on geographic, culturally, and political differences.
