One drop rule.

>Why was was it used
Because it could be. The American South was in an interesting spot. It's population consisted of wasp, Scotch-Irish and Black slaves. Thus the racial dynamics weren't very complex.

>>2808714
They were complex, after the first few generations mulattoes became very common.

>>2808714
>Scotch
Scots. Scotch is a drink.

>>2808728
>listening to a britfag
no thanks.

>>2808731
Yeah imagine that faggot, Scottish people deciding what Scottish people should be called. Shock horror.

>>2808735
I'm not going to go around calling Germans "Deutsh."

>>2808757
Scots is an English word you mongoloid. What's your first language?

>>2808760
American English. Not Scottish English. Scottish accent and terminology is irrelevant barbarian speak.

classic /his/ intellectualism

Are we genuinely the least educated board on 4chan? I'd be shocked if more than 5% of posters had any sort of formal education in history.

>>2808760
>The word "Scotch" was the favored adjective for things "of Scotland", including people, until the early 19th century, when it was replaced by the word "Scottish". It was never properly used as a noun. People in Scotland refer to themselves as Scots, as a noun, or adjectivally/collectively as Scots or Scottish. The use of "Scotch" as an adjective for anything but whiskey has been out of favor in the U.K. for 200 years, but remains in use in the U.S. in place names, names of plants, breeds of dog, a type of tape, etc., and in the term Scotch-Irish.

Britfags on suicide watch.

>>2808704
>has it been beneficial in the long run?
I'm no expert in American history, but it seems this protected the Black population from assimilation.

If mulattoes and quadroons kept marrying white people, the black population would have slowly been dissolved into the larger White population.
I can imagine the present US having almost no Black people except recent immigrants.
Instead the Black population was kept relatively homogeneous and whatever mixing existed was brought back and assimilated into the Black gene pool instead of leaking outwards.

File: p023bcx0[1].jpg (15KB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 400x225px

>>2808728
What about Scotch eggs anon. What about the Scotch eggs!

>>2808704
Because a human breed consisting of 70% African and 30% European is the most uncivilized ethnicity in American history.

>>2808801
It doesn't work like that. Black genes are dominant and white are recessive. If it wasn't for the influx of Europeans post civil war the US would look more like Brazil.

>>2809099
>Black genes are dominant and white are recessive
That's not how it works. If it was, then a dark black Jamaican person and a spooky ghost Irish person would have a black skinned baby. They don't though, they would actually have a brown baby.

File: America.jpg (1MB, 4167x4167px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4167x4167px

>>2808704
>one-drop

i guess there are no whites in american then

kek

>>2809115
And most black Americans people are actually brown. Being white is about purity.

>>2808704
Makes more sense than the Hispanic system, or whatever qualifies as "White" to them.

>>2809130
>I have arbitrarily decided that one drop of black blood makes a person black
>Therefore, black genes are dominant because one drop is enough to contaminate one's racial identity

File: image.jpg (1MB, 2592x1936px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2592x1936px

>>2809151
I didn't make the rules.

Pic related, I'm black.

>>2809160
The "rules" don't define science, though. That's the point I'm making.

>>2808704
One drop is a recent phenomenon, most of history didn't follow it.

If you read a book you'd know this

>>2809160
The point is, the rules are unscientific and categorize people arbitrarily.

>>2809361
>>2809175
Which brings us back to the original questions. Why was it implemented, and has it been beneficial?

>>2808767
I think we have a lot of history (((buffs))).

>>2808704
because its true, if you have black in you, you are black. mullatos never consider themselves white because they have black skin and black facial features.

is there anywhere on earth where someone like the girl in the op would be considered white? i dont think so.

>>2808704
>Why was was it used as the foundation of American racial ID politics
To stop working class unity

>>2809448
>is there anywhere on earth where someone like the girl in the op would be considered white?

Argentina

>>2809448
Before modern times? West Africa from late 18th century down.

>>2809448
Most of the world outside America. Certainly Africa and Europe

>>2809381
>Why was it implemented, and has it been beneficial?
To shit on people, and yes it's a very easy way to shit on people. There's literally no more to it.

I personally think the "one drop rule" is an exceeding poor system. This would be better.
Two Black parents = Black
One Black Parent one White parent = mulatto
One Black parent one Mulatto parent = Black
One White parent one Mulatto parent = quadroon
One Quadroon one Black parent = Mulatto
One Quadroon one White parent = White
What is wrong with this? Simple and to the point.

>>2809882
nonsymetric

>>2809890
Lets have a margin of error of 10%. that way we don't obsess over minute numbers

Two Black parents = Black Child, 100% Black DNA

One Black parent one White parent = 50% Black DNA, 50% White DNA. should be categorized as mulatto

One Mulatto parent one White parent = 25% Black DNA, 75% White DNA. Should be classified as Quadroon .

One Quadroon one White Parent = 12.5% Black DNA, 81.5% White DNA. At that point the person should be considered White. At around 12% give or take. That's fair imo.

>>2809943
What about 75% black, 25% white?

>>2808704
because that black DNA will pop up in a kid at some point

>>2809882
It's an obvious oversimplification.

What if one parent is 60-40 and another is 75-25 or any number of combinations. Mixed race people didn't just start happening, it runs generations deep. This is the reality for most black americans.

But you already know all this.

>>2809967
That is a griffe. It categorizes the vast majority of black Americans.

>>2810066
Then it's symetric.

Still stupid, but at least symetric.

File: image.jpg (73KB, 1080x1349px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1080x1349px

>>2808704
dat is a fine negress

id like to COLONIZE her ifykwim

>>2808767
If you unironically have a formal education in history, you belong on the least educated 4chins board.

>>2809127
Does this include your "white" Americans that you use for crime statistics balancing purposes?

>>2809115
>spooky ghost irish
Kek

>>2809127
>12.5% maximum
>0% minimum
>"all" Americans
No

>>2808704
Can't blame Jefferson desu

>>2808890
>human breed consisting of 70% African and 30% European is the most uncivilized ethnicity in American history

Why is that anon?

Why is a person of 1/8th African ancestry black? Did the other 7/8ths of their genetic code vanish into the aether? Why is everyone from Africa "black" despite the fact different regions in Africa have less genetic similarity with each other than they do with outside groups?

>>2811062
Because white is defined by purity, and black is defined by strength.

>>2811062
>Why is a person of 1/8th African ancestry black?
They aren't if you have brains. Something most Americans are sadly lacking.

>>2808704
>generations of white men fucking African slaves
>illegitimate mulatto children
>estates, inheritance, voting etc.
Gee, I wonder why.

>>2811062
Black genes are very specific, and make someone stand out, and it doesn't take much to make someone look black, regardless of if their skin is as light as an Arab's or not.

>>2809130
>Being white is about purity
Why isn't black about purity either? Africans are just as pure the only difference is their skin is darker because of melanin.
If you mix white and black paint, you don't get black.

>>2811133
This is the real reason OP was asking for. One drop rule was pragmatic politics. Nothing more.

>>2811133
This is the answer. Black Americans can thank jealous white women for their bastardization.

>>2811074
>i just pull things out of my ass

>>2811167
>jealous white women
Why more complicated than that. Things like inheritance, ect.

>>2811180
Exactly Jeffersons white wife wanted to make sure his black kids were forever relegated to slave status. The Jefferson case is only one example. This essentially happened across the board in early america. It was fueled by pure greed.

In the 1600's a law was enacted stating that a child inherited the status of their mother. I wonder who pushed for this?

>>2809448
>If you have some black in you, you are black

Yet it completely disregards another half or more a person's ancestry. It's a nonsensical rule.

You are, more accurately, mixed-raced.

There are so many places in the world where that girl would be deemed racially mixed. It's idiotic to proclaim black racial purity.