Even when seen as 'outsiders', meaning, as part of a different ethnic group, it's still not uncommon under European colonial rule that mixed white/black people have more privilege than black people. That is, what you say is not at odds with what magic_beans said.
Spanish rule in the Americas had race-based caste system. This included New Mexico. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Spain :
> Eventually a caste system was created to describe the various mixes and to assign them a different social level. ... The upper echelons of government were staffed by Spaniards born in Spain (peninsulares), the middle and lower levels of government and other higher paying jobs were held by Criollos (Criollos were Spaniards born in the Americas, or—as permitted by the casta system—Spaniards with some Amerindian or even other ancestry.[139]) The best lands were owned by Peninsulares and Criollos, with Native communities for the most part relegated to marginal lands. Mestizos and Mulattos held artisanal positions and unskilled laborers were either more mixed people, such as Zambos, recently freed slaves or Natives who had left their communities and settled in areas with large Hispanic populations.
Haiti inherited the French racial caste system. Quoting now from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti :
> Haitian mulattoes became the nation's social elite and racially privileged. Numerous leaders throughout Haiti's history have been mulattoes. Comprising 5% of the nation's population, mulattoes have retained their preeminence, evident in the political, economic, social and cultural hierarchy in Haiti.
In the South African apartheid system, "coloured" people (with mixed heritage) had higher status than "African" people (meaning black). While not explicit at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid you can infer from "Blacks were provided with services greatly inferior to those of whites, and, to a lesser extent, to those of Indian and coloured people." that black people were less privileged than mixed race people.
No, I'm saying that, in practice a person if mixed White/Black background will often be seen and treated as something-distinct-from-White (and disfavored for that reason) by Whites and something-distinct-from-Black (and, again, disfavored for that reason) by Blacks.
> Even when seen as 'outsiders', meaning, as part of a different ethnic group, it's still not uncommon under European colonial rule that mixed white/black people have more privilege than black people.
Yes, in systems with de jure racism, often mixed race categories are in an intermediate legal position between legally pure members of the dominant race and legally pure members of the disfavored race.
This actually is often part of why even the disadvantaged race, treats mixed race individuals, like advantaged-race individuals, as disfavored outsiders culturally, even long after that kind of legal system is gone.
> That is, what you say is not at odds with what magic_beans said
It was a refinement, not a disagreement.
As I understand your use of 'outsider', a person with a white background is an outsider to blacks, and will be disfavored for that reason by blacks, and a person with a black background will be an outsider to whites and disfavored for that reason.
In colonial countries the whites had the power, so even if what you say is true, it's a relatively small component to the power structure of the culture.
What usually happens is that mixed race people form their own group, historically identified with terms like "mulatto" or "brown" or "coloured". They are not outsiders to other members of that group, and as a group have a privilege level between those of whites and of blacks.
Your construction didn't seem to consider that a new racial group might form.
The "tragic mulatto" concept, as I understand it, is based on the premise that there are only whites or blacks, that whites and blacks will both disfavor mixed race people, and that mixed race people will not form their own racial group with in-group privileges.
This is why I believed a caution was in order.
I'm not making a commentary on the power structure of national level society, I'm making a commentary on the way mixed race people are often treated by various subcultures within that society.
> Your construction didn't seem to consider that a new racial group might form.
I think you have mistaken the word “often” in my post for the phrase “without exception”. Trust me, had I meant the latter, I would not have said the former.