Thanks for the intriguing and interesting comments and cheers. Sorry I don’t have time to respond.
Today I am posting because I had enough of people commenting on what biraciality represents–whether it’s the “positive” side of being a “bridge” or always “having a choice” or the negative side of “being confused.”
This Sunday morning on the New York Times, on the top page, there was an article that infuriated me. I am not going into the details (again, lack of time), but I will just give you the quote that annoyed me the most: “Even his eyes — one brown, the other green — hint at roots in two places.” In the context of the article, which makes mention about how “troubled” and “confused” he was, the implication that his “mixed roots” contributed to his “confusion” seems pretty solid. This is a remix of the “tragic” and “confused” mulatto narrative that I am tired of hearing and tired of being subjected to.
It’s harder to marry (or get together with) someone with whom you don’t share a common language, culture, or set of beliefs. That’s partially why international (and sometimes inter-racial) marriages have a seemingly lower “success” rate. (If you consider the length of time being together the only measure of a “successful” marriage.) Kids who have parents with a strong and solid relationship, regardless of their race(s) or nationality/ies, often turn out fine. The ones who come out “troubled” are the ones who had parents who couldn’t communicate solidly irrespective of their differences or commonalities. With “troubled” children who come from “mixed” backgrounds, people are too happy to point to that as the cause of a majority of their “problems.” Really, the world is a bit more complicated than that. Not that I trust journalism that much, but this level is just too low.
The rest of the article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/us/22terror.html?hp=&pagewanted=all