Trumping the Droplet
I have always been appalled by the idea that if a person has “one drop” of “Black” blood in them, then they are “Black.”
If you have “The Drop,” then no other ethnicity, skin color, or culture can trump that Black droplet.
I wonder where that notion of a single drop of blood making you Black was invented.
It seems impossible that idea came from the scientific community.
A single drop of pure water doesn’t make the ocean any less salty. Adding a single speck of sugar to cookie dough doesn’t make the cookie any sweeter.
If Racial identification by blood droplet isn’t chemical or scientific — then is it a cultural condemnation and a preservation of a social pecking order used to falsely mediate expectation?
The droplet identifier isn’t perceived as a mark of pride by those attending the notion and applying its appeal. There isn’t a day when we celebrate “Being a little Black” in the same spirit that we celebrate having “A little Irish in all of us” on Saint Patrick’s Day.
Is the idea of the droplet a mark to dehumanize those without identifiable — or stereotypical — “Black” skin in order to keep them down and under social control? Once accused, how does one disprove they do not have the droplet?
Is it possible we all have a droplet of Black blood? How can anyone truly know the genetic blood history of their ancestors from thousands of years ago? There is no blood test that can differentiate a single drop of blood from the rest of the body’s blood pool.
Why have we allowed the notion — the total evisceration — of a person based on the theory of a single droplet? Can we ever trump the droplet or not?