Chauncey DeVega

Chauncey DeVega
Location
Chicago, Illinois, USA
Birthday
September 11
Title
A (Sometimes) Respectable Negro
Bio
Editor and Founder of the blog We Are Respectable Negroes He has been a guest on the BBC, Ring of Fire Radio, Ed Schultz, Joshua Holland's Alternet Radio Hour, the Burt Cohen show, and Our Common Ground. His essays have been featured by Salon, Alternet, the New York Daily News, and the Daily Kos. The NY Times, the Daily Beast, the Utne Reader, Washington Monthly, Slate, and the Week (among others) have featured his expert commentary and analysis on race, politics, and popular culture.

JUNE 19, 2012 1:18PM

White Washing the Rape of Michelle Obama's Ancestor

Rate: 4 Flag

Why would any person honor rapist's blood?

In an effort to write the Obamas, who are de facto American royalty, back into a larger post-racial narrative that ostensibly makes some white folks feel more comfortable about having a black President, such a move seems par for the course.

In 2009, the NY Times featured a very problematic story about how genealogical researchers had reconstructed Michelle Obama's family tree. There, the NY Times detailed how one of the First Lady's ancestors was a child slave--and in all likelihood repeatedly raped by her white master. Just as was done in Saturday's Meet Your Cousin, the First Lady: A Family Story, Long Hidden by Rachel Swarns, the realities of power and exploitation under the chattel regime were conveniently overlooked and (quite literally) white washed away.

Family tree DNA research is in vogue: networks such as PBS and ABC have found it a compelling means to craft a narrative about a shared "American experience." Given the country's demographic shifts, and the election of its first black President, there is a coincidence of interests who are deeply invested in furthering a narrative of multicultural America, one where it is imagined that we are all in one way or another related.

In this racial project, the color line is broken in some deeply dishonest ways which do nothing to challenge power, illuminate deeper truths about racial inequality in the United States, overturn white privilege, or challenge the Racial State.

For example, Henry Louis Gates Jr. can discover his Irish roots. Tina Turner can find out she is not significantly related to the Cherokee. Latino stars and starlets can find out about their "exciting" Anglo-African-Indigenous roots. Asian Americans can find out about their long history of respect for education, family, and the arts.

And white ethnics can have their "hard times," "we suffered too just like the blacks so why do they complain?" family mythologies validated too.

Because the President and First Lady are the symbolic leaders of a country in which black people were the very definition of the "anti-citizen," less than human, property, and not fit for inclusion in the polity, the DNA citizenship project's goals are robust. The discovery of Michelle Obama's white ancestors--while no surprise to her family--is a way for white folks to find kinship with her...to "own" her. Ironically, this will do nothing to soothe the anxieties of reactionary white conservatives--to them she is a black woman who has no business being in the White House except as a chambermaid.

Likewise, President Obama may be "half-white." Nevertheless, he is the blackest man alive (despite all efforts to distance himself from policies that would assist the specific and particular challenges faced by African-Americans in the Great Recession) for the Tea Party GOP and the racially resentful, reactionary white public. Race is a double bind for the President. Obama's whiteness is a means to excuse-make for their racism; Obama's blackness is a means for white bigots to overtly disrespect and diminish him.

Swarns' essay on Michelle Obama's family (and white relatives) is an exercise in violence through the use of contemporary, politically correct language. When she massages away stories of rape, trauma, and human exploitation in order to further a master frame and narrative that wants to amplify the juxtaposition of the Obama's success in the present, and Michelle's white ancestors' "humble" origins, something is horribly amiss. These are racial micro-aggressions of the textbook variety.

Whiteness is built upon lies. As such, there are many white deflections in Meet Your Cousin, the First Lady: A Family Story, Long Hidden . The most obvious one is the act of discovery, this shock by the Tribble family that their ancestors owned slaves.

[Laughably, while there were many millions of African slaves in the United States, apparently no white people who are alive today had ancestors who owned slaves. Riddle you that one?]

In response to the NY Times' first foray into these ugly, ahistorical waters, I offered a commentary and rewrite. I would like to pivot off of that intervention again.

Let's work through a few particularly rich passages in Meet Your Cousin, the First Lady: A Family Story, Long Hidden and offer some correctives.

From the NY Times:

The bloodlines of Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Tribble extend back to a 200-acre farm that was not far from here. One of their common ancestors was Henry Wells Shields, Mrs. Tribble’s great-great-grandfather. He was a farmer and a family man who grew cotton, Indian corn and sweet potatoes. He owned Mrs. Obama’s maternal great-great-great-grandmother, Melvinia Shields, who was about 8 years old when she arrived on his farm sometime around 1852

The DNA tests and research indicate that one of his sons, Charles Marion Shields, is the likely father of Melvinia’s son Dolphus, who was born around 1860. Dolphus T. Shields was the first lady’s maternal great-great-grandfather. His identity and that of his mother, Melvinia, were first reported in an article in The New York Times in 2009, which also indicated that he must have had a white father.

Melvinia was a teenager, perhaps around 15, when she gave birth to her biracial son. Charles was about 20.

Such forbidden liaisons across the racial divide inevitably bring to mind the story of Thomas Jefferson and his slave Sally Hemings. Mrs. Obama’s ancestors, however, lived in a world far removed from the elegance of Jefferson’s Monticello, his 5,000-acre mountain estate with 200 slaves. They were much more typical of the ordinary people who became entangled in America’s entrenched system of servitude.

There is much wrong here. How do we contextualize the relationship between Melvinia and the white people who owned her? She is also a child in an unimaginable situation. She is torn from her home and family and sold to the Shields family. Does she have the power to resist his advances? No.

This is not a "relationship" based on consent: it is rape and exploitation.

The politics of language are rich here as they advance a multicultural, conservative, colorblind racial agenda that imposes contemporary standards onto the past in an effort to remove the grounds of historical grievance in the present. Melvinia did not give birth to a "biracial" child. She was raped and had a black child who would be considered human property unless freed by his "father."

The Slaveocracy and America's racial order was based on the "one-drop rule" where a child's racial status and freedom was determined by that of the mother. Thus, a white man (and slave owner) could rape, exploit, and do as he wished with black women (and men). The children would be born slaves. The logic of hypodescent was also operative as well. Race is not about the reality of genetic makeup and admixture. Racial identity is about perceptions by the in-group regarding who belongs and who does not.

Despite all of the efforts by the multiracial movement in contemporary America to create a "mixed race" census category--what is really a desire to access white privilege through the creation of a buffer race or colored class--being perceived as "black" or as having "African" ancestry, marks a person as having a connection to that group.

The NY Times is working to frame the story of Michelle's ancestors, and the child rapist, slave owning Shields family, as a human story and drama, one about "ordinary" people.

This passage furthers that narrative:

In Clayton County, Ga., where the Shields family lived, only about a third of the heads of household owned human property, and masters typically labored alongside their slaves. Charles was a man of modest means — he would ultimately become a teacher — whose parents were only a generation or so removed from illiteracy.
The NY Times is also emphasizing the ironic parallels of the present: the Obamas are now the President and First Lady; the Tribbles are a family of far more modest social standing. The NY Times is also developing a script that fits within a broader American story of hard work, yeoman farmers, and aspiring, fundamentally decent, white people.

This racial project involves the crafting of a story in which slavery was relatively uncommon. Moreover, slavery was really the foul practice of the fictionalized plantation class as depicted in Gone with the Wind. The white racial frame desperately wants to rehabilitate white people and Whiteness from any connection to one of  the country's greatest sins. While it cannot eliminate the color line, the white racial frame can emphasize how white slave owners were not necessarily "evil." These "humble" participants in the slaveocracy even worked alongside their slaves.

History can be unfair in its harsh truths. America's wealth was built on cotton and human property. African Americans--black slaves--were the single largest capital good in the United States. As such, to own slaves was to have a chance at upward class mobility. Owning human property was the root of Southern society and being "American." As has often been alluded to by historians, while a small number of slave owners had large numbers of slaves, the reality is that the South was a slave society. This extended across class levels. As such, the Shields were deeply and personally invested in a system of white supremacy.

On this point, James Oakes' essential text The Ruling Race suggests that:

The ownership of slaves became for many immigrants the single most important symbol of their success in the New World, although few of the ever participated in the economy of the larger plantation...Professionals also  prospered as merchants, civil servants, and craftsmen. In 1850, more than 27,000 doctors, lawyers, teachers, and other professionals were included in the ranks of the slaveholding class.  

Slaveholding professionals were probably the single most influential class in the antebellum South. Their education and wealth gave them control of much of the southern press. They were elected to political office in staggeringly unrepresentative numbers by presenting themselves to southern voters as living testimony to the validity of the American dream of upward mobility.

There are White Lies and the liars who tell them:
Melvinia was not a privileged house slave like Sally. She was illiterate and no stranger to laboring in the fields. She had more biracial children after the Civil War, giving some of the white Shieldses hope that her relationship with Charles was consensual.

“To me, it’s an obvious love story that was hard for the South to accept back then,” said Aliene Shields, a descendant who lives in South Carolina.

Again, the language of "biracial" is used incorrectly. Melvinia had black children who would grow up in a society where people like them were marginalized and uniquely subject to Jim and Jane Crow, black codes, economic exploitation, and the violence of the KKK, police, and lynching tree.

In another example of the deceptive and delusional power of the white racial frame in practice, Aliene Shields lies to herself. Her understanding of whiteness as an identity that is inherently good cannot accept that her ancestors were killers and rapists. She wants to make a story of child rape, exploitation, and racism into a Lifetime movie where "love" succeeds against all odds.

Is Shields' investment in Whiteness so tied to a fiction of white personhood as being existentially benign, that she cannot critically assess the fact(s) of race in America? Is Whiteness that precarious and vulnerable a social identity?

Interestingly, Michelle Obama's ancestor never claimed the white ancestry of her "love child:"

People who knew Melvinia said she never discussed what happened between them, whether she was raped or treated with affection, whether she was loved and loved in return.

Contemporary America emerged from that multiracial stew, a nation peopled by the heirs of that agonizing time who struggled and strived with precious little knowledge of their own origins. By 1890, census takers counted 1.1 million Americans of mixed ancestry.

Somewhere along the way, she decided to keep the truth about her son’s heritage to herself.

All four of Mrs. Obama’s grandparents had multiracial forebears. There were Irish immigrants who nurtured their dreams in a new land and free African-Americans who savored liberty long before the Civil War. Some were classified as mulatto by the census, while others claimed Cherokee ancestry.

Melvinia should have voice and agency in her own story. If the child she had with Charles Tribble was born of consent and mutual affection, why would his white lineage not be spoken of? Could it be that blackness trumps whiteness in a one-drop rule society? Thus, "biracial" identity as imposed backwards in the NY Times piece is a fiction, a marker with little to no currency in 19th century America?

The racial project of reading America as a multiracial society historically, in the service of a post-racial fiction about the Age of Obama in the present, is operative throughout the above passage. Rachel Swarns' allusion to a "multiracial" stew ignores the role of law, practice, social norms, and the State in carefully policing the color line.

These Americans of "mixed ancestry" were not celebrated. White authorities saw them as a problem to be corrected, "cured," eliminated, and as a threat to American society. For example, white race scientists labored over what to do about the WIN tribe who were of mixed black, native American, and white ancestry. Strict racial laws about miscegenation, segregation, schooling, and other areas of civil society, were enforced through violence in order to protect the purity of America's "white racial stock."

These racially ambiguous people knew that to "pass" into whiteness was to move up the class and racial hierarchy. This was a common story in the black community, but also extended to Melungeons, the Mississippi Chinese, and others who in acts of racial realpolitik ran away from blackness in order to secure some share of whiteness as a type of property.

Meet Your Cousin, the First Lady: A Family Story, Long Hidden's last paragraph is a potpourri of historical flattening and misrepresentation.

Black Americans are a "multiracial" people. This is largely a byproduct of mass rape. And white blood has purchased little if any social currency in white society for those blacks able to leverage it. The Irish are an object lesson in how white ethnics transitioned from some type of racial Other into full whiteness. They were a group that were once considered "black," but who "earned" whiteness through racial violence against people of color. While a common misunderstanding that yearns for alliances across racial lines among oppressed peoples, the Cherokees, like many other Native American tribes, owned blacks as human property and participated in the slave trade.

White denial blinds:

“I’m appalled at slavery,” said Mrs. George, 61. “I don’t know how that could have even gone on in a Christian nation. I know that times were different then. But the idea that one of our ancestors raped a slave..."

She trailed off for a moment, considering the awful possibility.

This is an example of willful and cultivated ignorance. One of the core privileges of Whiteness in this society is the power to avoid certain facts, to protect oneself from discomfort, and to live in a bubble of racial myopia. If black folks are subject to the existential dilemma and threat of "niggerization," white folks have been subject to a cultural project that exaggerates their worth, and protects them from uncomfortable truths.

Christianity was central to the Slave Regime. White Christians may have temporarily struggled with owning human property, but they quickly reconciled such tensions in the pursuit of profit. Some whites were so angst ridden that they worried that white people, "Christians" like them, would be damned to hell in the afterlife for participating in such a vicious business. Christianity could be used to provide justification for the enslavement of black people; the Bible was a tool for creating docile slaves.

Oakes offers more insight here:

In later years, the psychological dilemma of masters was reflected in the frequently expressed wish to be rid of the slave entirely. Completely ignoring the servants who stood right behind her, a Gulf Coast mistress declared that "it would be better if there wasn't any niggers in the world."

"Lord send that there was no negro in all America," a Mississippi master prayed...The slaveholders confirmed the essential tragedy of their lives by declaring their inability and unwillingness to change. "We were born under the institution and cannot now change or abolish it," a Mississippi slaveholder declared. He would rather be "exterminated" than be forced to live in the same society "with the slaves, if freed."

...Slaveholders never did find a way to abolish slavery "with safety," and so the lure of prosperity continued to attract white Southerners to black slavery, despite moral injunctions implicit in their religious values.

A white privilege laced confessional?  
“I would like to know the answer, but I would not like to know that my great-grandfather was a rapist,” she said. “I would like to know in my brain that they were nice to her and her children. It would be easier to live with that.”

Mrs. Tribble, who began researching her roots before Mrs. Obama became the first lady, said she was shocked to learn that her ancestors owned slaves.

“My family, well, they were just your most basic people who never had a lot,” Mrs. Tribble said. “I never imagined that they owned slaves.”

"It would be easier to live with that.” This is the crystallization of white privilege: it is the power to bend reality in the service of one's own will and needs. Thus, Mrs. Tribble is able to fashion a lie for herself, one that makes her feel better about the realities of her ancestors' behavior.

I wonder if Melvinia had that privilege? I wonder if black people specifically, and people of color more generally, have such a power--to avoid the uncomfortable through an act of willful self-deception on matters of race and racial inequality--in this country today?

Whiteness and white privilege do moral, ethical, intellectual, cognitive and spiritual damage to white people in American society. Meet Your Cousin, the First Lady: A Family Story, Long Hidden is a tour de force example of that reality. 

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Indeed interesting. Your analysis and commentary are excellent. The history of slavery in this country and the generations that followed who have both white and black ancestry is fascinating. Whether children were fathered as the result of lust or love..they were born into a world which offered them nothing but bias. There will come a time...in the not too distant future when pure bred whites will be in the minority.

Personally I don't give a hoot about who fathered whom. We come to this earth as strangers. Our birth is an accident. We have no say in the matter. I hope Mrs. Obama will leave a legacy of excellence during her residency in the White House. It is what we do with our genes that matters.
I am white with traces of Indian blood. So I guess I am not"pure bred". No matter, if I found out tomorrow that I descended from a jew and a former black slave, I would find it shocking as a scandal would have happened somewhere in the tree but, it would not change who I was as a person.
So Michelle's great great great grandfather may have been a rapist, am a guilty to some extent because I look and consider myself white? My relatives came to this country after 1880 so, you must have me confused with some other guy.
According to you Michelle has both the perp and the victim coursing through her veins, my hapless ancestors were being told they"need not apply" a good 25 years after the fact.
One of the things that I find most appalling and unspeakable, amidst the over-all appalling and unspeakable history of slavery, is how the white men could consign THEIR OWN 'BIRACIAL' CHILDREN to slavery, to sell them, to deal with them as chattel.
the "cavalier" presumption of the plantation owners carried with it the long tradition of "sporting" and casual rape of the people they had the "God given" right of life and death over- this was not merely a Southern, or American or even European pretense not limited to the past- all that history has accomplished so far has been to put a veneer over it.

I do not see any reason Michelle would care much who distant relatives are but I am sure they would be proud to claim some small accidental role in creating the marvolous individual she is. I am sure that somewhere in my Deutch peasant history a Lord or party of lords happily inseminated their way into my DNA but I am proud of the boers who worked the land and made the bread not the abusers of land and circumstance.
Hi Chauncey,

I must first say your article is alert and appealing, it is never easy to ask what people experience first hand, never mind speaking about ancestry. With all due respect there are many families that can barely speak of the pain caused by insulting situations dealt to them along the lines of poverty, in which you outline white people that have dealt with such times. Regardless of color, the impact is devasting, the sense of "you cannot" reaches beyond color and impacts people. Discrimination can bind people easily, it is an invisible vapor that can turn many things sour, peoples opinions of other people they do not like, for what ever reason. Usually baseless, senseless and callous comments that come out of the mouths that belive for what ever reason they are somehow better than thou, and usually color as you site becomes pervasive and dangerous to signal out for variances of treatment. The idea that people would entertain slavery is slightly tasteless, but has gone on for generations. We as a society have a need for someone to be the lower class, the middel classs however it's appeal is for many many reasons is a good thing, because you can't dictate class and distinction. People that are better are better because they have attributed themselves to become better by style and dress and class. Now for those that are beyond the comprehension of the middle class as some of our forebearers whos lives were brought out of slavery, but never really freed from it's ugliness then they are of a different class riddled with the fear of having to be "owned" and with out the sense of freedom that chores alone could differentiate between being owned. People are still much to their heartache "owned" by rude and obnoxious husbands, cheating and wife beating men, women who do not respect their man, cheat and gamble and add long lists of "do not tell" to their repitore of ugly mis-guided emotions that will lay out well in some "Faulkner" novel about how people are highly dysfunctional. Many people that do get it, would be quickly disgusted by their own plethora of ache and insanity that they plead with themselves each and every day to free them from their disillusion. But it's too late for many that are unfortuneatly owned by their own deciet.
Briefly, I also wish to comment on the part of landowners and slaveowners working side by side, in the times of the Great Depression, one night I happend to be watching one of those long drawn documentaries regarding the world famous Gallo Wines. It was pretty devasting to me to listen to the account of relatives speak about the treatement early on of both the Gallo children Earnest and Julio Gallo. They were both used as workers as early as three years of age working in the fields. I was both amazed and appalled, but so much of what was wrong was never seen as such. How is it that a country with so much to offer can also be on the opposing end? It seems ironic but it could be better understood to understand certain ways of maintaing ones identity when least pressured to think of ones meaning. When we are expecting some revelancy towards a idea especially one as delicate as race, it gets to the point of complete escapulation and people would not respect it's sense of tasteless irony. A true writer can always manage to make people feel for the underdog, because he is the one that "feels" the discontentment and the discrimantion, the others are reacting, because they belive or think it's correct. They are not in the right place to "feel" what slavery means, otherwise clearly they wouldn't do it. In trying to save face...we can still refine the sense of poverty to many of our ancestral past and still own the sense of dread of others finding out that indeed we are poor. Todays middle sense of whiteness and blackness has laid a new path of "other" to it. But by no means does it help to identify the reasons why we need to classify race as bad or good. Except in terms of being forced or being raped, those injustices deserve attention. I also think about stories regarding another famous First family, that of the "Kennedy's". I feel it is abhorable how the President was able to have his cake and be sang to by on national t.v. the infamous "Happy Birthday" by Marilynn Monroe. In determining how often we need to ask ourselves "what is wrong with this picture?" as Americans is obvious, often, often, more often.
Swarn writing the rape and impregnation of a child slave into some kind of "forbidden love" tale is despicable. Utterly sickening. You have covered so much here, I will reread this a few times.
r./
Your point is well-taken. At least your central point. Your peripheral points are too, actually.

Was slave ownership common? To figure that one out, I'd suggest reading Huckleberry Finn. That's a pretty good non-plantation portrait, certainly in terms of scale.

You made a very important point: "Race is not about the reality of genetic makeup and admixture. Racial identity is about perceptions by the in-group regarding who belongs and who does not." That, actually, is the problem with the various flaps about racial differences in aggregate IQ. The people studying this were looking for a genetic difference in a population that was determined more by social factors than dominant genetic ones. You can't accurately study anything about genetic consequences without carefully tracking genetics, which wasn't done here. The result is a body of work that inadvertently makes the opposite point than the one intended: Black people have far more in common with each other in terms of how they're treated than in terms of genetics, meaning such studies basically prove that perceived aggregate IQ differences are mainly attributable to environmental factors, i.e. bigotry and its consequences.

(Perceived aggregate IQ differences is its own topic: Those who believe those studies mostly think (that this word applies is questionable) that they mean that almost all Whites have higher IQ's than almost all Blacks, when the truth about those studies, even if true, is that we have a pair of slightly offset bell curves. In practice that means if, for example, the racial difference were 20 percentile points, if a Black candidate for a job and a White candidate for the same job were randomly selected, the Black candidate would have the higher IQ in 40% of all cases, meaning that the race variable applied to comparative IQ isn't reliable enough to affect employment under any circumstances. It's useless information for every purpose other than determining the distribution of certain public resources to correct for problems that are ultimately institutionally caused. )

Racism is still pervasive and the President hasn't done much to counter that - he's more inclined to run from it.

Of course Michelle Obama's ancestor was raped. That's what we call sex that isn't voluntary, and the odds of voluntary sex in this case are pretty slim.
1) Never assume that all antebellum racial mixing by white males was "rape." Powerful males have always attracted women of lower status. Lord and peasant or master and slave, it made sense for a woman to take a gamble on better conditions for herself and her children. Blacks like DeVega who scream about "rapist blood" are usually "one drop" advocates who want to drag as much "rapist blood" into their "race" (kicking and screaming) as they can get their claws on. The truth is that this alleged "rapist blood" was often considered an honor by blacks who desperately wanted to marry mulattoes and quadroons because they believed that the genes of their racial "enemy" were the source of intelligence and beauty (light skin, "good" hair). As for DeVega's ridiculous claim that unequal status and the lack of a legal right to refuse was by definition "rape," let's say that almost every marriage in the history of the world was "rape" if you use that logic. Why? Because few societies gave the wife the right to refuse sex to her husband (including our own society until very recently).

2) DeVega makes the ignorant statement that the "one drop" myth originated in slavery. Scholars such as Ariela Gross, Daniel Sharfstein and Frank W. Sweet have proved that the "one drop" myth originated in the 20th century and is related to the eugenics movement. The truth is that trials of racial definition depended more on whether an individual or family "acted whiteness" (conducting themselves in the manner expected of white persons) than on quotas of "black blood."

3) DeVega's real motivation is revealed when he throws a hissy fit over the use of the word "biracial." Sorry, DeVega. The kid was not "black" but "mulatto." Mulatto and whiter mixed-blood elites were, in general, far above blacks in education, free status, property ownership, etc. because they often had assistance from white relatives or other whites. If DeVega denies this, then the only explanation becomes a genetic one.

4) American blacks are NOT a "multiracial people." If they were one-tenth as multiracial as DeVega maintains, they would look like Hispanics (a true multiracial people). A little white ancestry here and there (probably from a mulatto or other mixed woman raped by a black male?) does not make them multiracial. Hell, there are more brown-skinned people calling themselves "white" than there are deluded fair-skinned people calling themselves "black." Many different peoples throughout the world have suffered rape by conquerors, but only American blacks like DeVega want desperately to assimilate (by force) as much "rapist blood" as they can grab. When the products of these alleged rapes practice endogamy and avoid marrying blacks, the latter are often enraged. DeVega and company hate "The White Man" but seem to view his genes as genetic gold, to be seized and confined whenever possible. The black racial insecurity and inferiority complex so typical of DeVega is the source of the fanatical opposition to any multiracial recognition.
You piece treats the average and the specific as the same. For example, as a group, black Americans descended from slaves, but if you pick one random individual, such as President Obama, you may find a completely different story.

So, this isn't a question of whether black female slaves were or were not often raped by their white masters, but whether one particular slave was raped by one particular man, which is an entirely different question, for which, as far as I can see, there isn't enough evidence to come to a definite conclusion.

When people live in close proximity, sexual attraction and love often arise. I'd imagine sex was probably one of the few pleasures available to a slave and I'd also doubt that the social stigma of premarital sex existed for slaves. In short, there wasn't much to stop Melvinia from indulging in a mutually enjoyable roll in the hay. Nor was there anything to stop Charles from raping his father's chattel, either.

So, if you are looking at Melvinia and Charles, not the average white master and black slave, you can not conclude that she was raped and he was a rapist. You do, like Shields' descendants, have to consider it a possibility.

I will note that families have erased rape from their histories for centuries. We'd all like to be descended from kings and heros, not rapists, murderers and thieves.
A very interesting article and analysis. Coincidentally, I just finished reading Frederick Douglass' slave narrative. He makes a point throughout of the damage the slave society did to white people as well, and this article certainly makes that point. What a kind of moral corruption is involved in the distorting of reality to ease the pain of the perpetrators? Douglass also makes the point that the religious slaveholders were inevitably the most brutal.
"Biracial" is a confusing term in the US because it's so difficult to figure out where to apply it. I notice that AD Powell talks about the American Black population as not being "multiracial." Perhaps not multi, but certainly bi. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't be looking at a lot of lightness variation in that population but there's actually a great deal of variation.

The issue isn't genetic so much as cultural. President Obama is atypical in that he has no American slave ancestry at all, so classifying him in this respect becomes difficult. How do we classify someone like, say, Lisa Bonet? The next question is the purpose of taxonomy in this case - is it primarily descriptive? Because there are still status differences between races, some will accuse others of using "biracial" to establish distance.

Culture vs. genetics can get even more complex. I have a child adopted from Asia, but her upbringing was American Jewish. She's Asian, but the utility of that description is limited.
@Kosher
Biracial is confusing because race is a social construct, not a biological fact. However, if you're going to insist on categorizing people into races, biracial is a valid a concept. Why should someone like Obama be asked to deny one parent's heritage because we want everyone in neat and entirely mythical black and white categories?
Koshersalaami,

An identity can be legitimate for some people and a stigma (false "ethnicity" or "race") for others. Consider government-imposed Jewish identity in Nazi Germany. Most "Jews" were legitimately Jewish but some were non-Jews of Jewish ancestry who had false Jewish identities imposed on them in the name of "race." Did they magically obtain "Jewish culture"? Why then are you so willing to impose a "Nuremberg Law" or "one drop rule" on non-blacks (those who have the misfortune to be too American and not Hispanic or Arab) just to make envious blacks like Chauncey DeVega feel good?

http://melungeon.ning.com/forum/topics/5th-union-presentation-by-a-d-powell