Definitions: Whyte and Blach

I think it is time for us as a people to start using better words to describe our American experience, and to do so with the intent of naming our virtues and evils in a way that can lead to reconciliation, growth, and simply a better future.

A big part of what causes conflict among Americans is the words we use to describe ourselves.

So let's start at the beginning. Scientifically speaking, there are no "white" and "black" races. There are no races, period. The research in this area is ample and undisputable, you can do some research and figure that out - I won't spend time here arguing that point. I am exploring the topic based on the fact that there are no races, and that skin color does not define an ethnic nor cultural group in the United States, period. Yes, there are ethnicities, and there are biological features that are more prevalent in one group versus another. Some of those differences are genetic, like a predisposition to breast cancer, whereas some are the result of cultural practices such as diet. If you want to better understand this, I suggest looking up Blue Zones, for example.

I would argue that what we have in the US are two predominant cultural groups based on ethnic ancestry, which over the last 400 years have intermixed to the point that we cannot claim any longer that there is a pure "breed" on either side. This is how I see and define these two groups:

Whyte - people of predominantly European, Canadian and Russian descent (US-born and foreign-born residing in the United States) who settled in current United States of America post Columbo's expeditions, with light color skin tone, of Judeo-Christian religious background, with capitalist economic preference. Whyte, for the purpose of this series of writings, is NOT a global definition, it only applies to people who live in the United States and fit the description above. Whyte people in the U.S. can belong to a larger, global group, let's call it Global North, but I don't have as clear a definition of that group, so I'll leave it up to you to define it in the comments. This implies that you can be light-skinned Palestinian Muslim, and you would likely not be considered part of the "Whyte" subgroup, whereas your light-skinned Israeli Jewish cousin would. Various ethnic groups have emigrated from Europe and Russia to the United States, especially in the last 200 years, and there has been in fighting among those groups durin the acculturation periods. Among the Whyte, they might even have understandings of what distinguishes a German from a Polish from a French. However, those differences have been worked out over time and their definition of Whyteness has made room for ethnic diversity. This is why a darker skinned Italian can still be considered Whyte.

Blach - people of predominantly non-European, Canadian or Russian descent (US-born and foreign-born residing in the United States), with any amount of color on their skin, be it yellow, red, or brown, some who were here before colonization, most of whom are of African slave descent to some degree. Blachs can belong to a global majority that we will call "Global South", composed of all geographies south of the United States, Europe, and Russia. Again, I'm eager to hear how you would define "Global South" in the comments below. Under my working definition therefore, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, Asians, Middle Easterns, Africans and Hispanics who live in the United States could be categorized as "Blach" (similar to our acronym "BIPOC") even though many of them would not consider themselves of black skin tone, nor Black, nor African American. This actually brings me some personal relief, as I no longer have to explain why I consider myself a Dominican Afro-Caribbean, but not "American Black", since that implies a sub-culture that I don't identify with. Furthermore, this definition also makes room for the unique experiences of the American descendants of former African slaves and those Blachs who emigrated to the United States during segregation era. I will not attempt to define them with a label at this point, although I am interested in how they would define themselves in the context of this framework.

From a global perspective, the Global North colonized the Global South, inspired by imperialism and fueled by the Industrial Revolution. I will not defend this position - history speaks clearly on this and thus, in my mind, this is not up for debate. The extraction of raw materials, art, and expertise from the Global South fueled the growth of industrialized nations, creating the current global wealth gap that exists and persists between nations located in these two geographies.

The United States of America is a microcosm of this global reality, where Whyte colonizers built an industrialized economy that, in part or in whole, benefited from the labor of Blachs in the continental US, its territories, and the Global South in general. Again, these facts are not disputed, but please share your thoughts in the comments. I want to hear it.

However, life unfolded a particular way in the US. No, we are not the only country to experience "racism", slavery, or even colorism. We are not the authors of colonialism (though we might be the authors of imperialism). I would even argue that the human experience is riddled with "isms", and if it wasn't Whyteness/Blachness, we would find other ways to segment ourselves. If you doubt that, look at sexism, ageism, ableism, etc. We are good at creating distinctions, classes, and most relevant to this newsletter series, hierarchies. The good news is that we also are good creating connections, finding similarities, and reevaluating hierarchies, which is why I'm writing this series of essays.

In the United States, Whyte settlers removed the original free people from the land, implemented a particularly "American" form of slavery that included the capture or purchase of Africans, forcibly bringing them to the United States, and subjugating them to servitude for eternity. Let us unpack this a bit further. Native Americans were, through war and diplomacy, moved to what today we call "Reservations". Once again, these are historical facts, nothing to argue about. In addition, the Trans-Atlantic African slave trade made stops throughout various ports across the Caribbean, Central and South America, as well as the United States, forever changing the ethnic composition of the Americas. Once in American territory, slaves of African descent were not able to work for nor purchase their freedom. In contrast to indentured servitude, which Whytes had access to, Blach slaves were slaves for life, as well as their children, and the children of their children. These two actions on behalf of the general Whyte population created by default a hierarchy in which Whyteness governed the land, its resources, and the means of production, including human labor. This is important because it set the tone for the disparities that persist to this day in this country.

As a side note, it is important to note that many, if not all, Latin American countries are some blend of African, European and indigenou. So when people from Latin America emigrate to the US, they challenges that current American notion of Whyte and Blach. I am one of those Latin Americans who is Blach ONLY because my complexion excludes me from Whyteness, given that I meet all other discernible criteria. Here is where we can see the influence of skin color on the Whyte/Blach dichotomy, although we know that skin color is not the defining factor.

What we don't talk about often enough is the historical fact that in the United States, as in Latin America tho to a lesser degree, there was a blend of African slaves, Native Americans and European settlers throughout and since the colonization period. This is why the resulting ethnic composition is not purely a difference in skin color - black or white - but rather the formation of sub-cultures, thus my naming them Blach and Whyte. I will discuss this further in a future article. (Subscribe to the newsletter if you want to be notified).

Let's unpack this further. A truly "white skinned" person is probably an Albino, or someone who has a biological condition that produces negligible levels of melanin. And although I have seen people who are of a very dark skin tone, I am not sure I have met truly "black" skinned people. This might seem obvious, but I believe it is a very important piece of the conversation, since the binary option of "Black" and "White" technically excludes everyone on the planet. This is how we know that these words point to something other than real skin tone. Furthermore, the dichotomy does not account for the long spectrum between the extremes - all the shades of brown, yellow, red, and the combinations that result from inter-breeding. This is the downfall of identity politics, also the topic of a future article. Stay tuned.

Ok. We have working definitions of Whyte and Blach. So what? Well, we can now discuss the evolution of the binary American thinking, and explore its impact on various aspects of our society.

Francesca is CFO/COO at The Allapattah Collaborative, CDC