White Supremacist tested: is part black

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@razorsharp

Self identification is the final determination of race.

</p>

<p>True on census forms and the like.</p>

<p>But when it comes to one’s experience with racial discrimination, it is identification by others (which does not necessarily match one’s self-identification or anything relating to one’s genetic or ethnic heritage) that matters.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>

“European-American” is usually an oddball concoction proposed by oddball folks, in my experience.

</p>

<p>My observation is that this phrase came into play by the people who didn’t want to call black people black so they decided black people would be African American even though very few African Americans have ever been to African and if they went to African they would understand why they would be better of calling themselves black. If blacks are to be AA, then whites should be European Americans goes the theory. It’s stupid but when has that stopped people from using the phrase.</p>

[Niquii77]

<p>

…so they decided black people would be African American even though very few African Americans have ever been to African and if they went to African they would understand why they would be better of calling themselves black.

That logic, razorsharp. LOL!</p>

[cobrat]

<p>

If you want to self-identify yourself as black, even though you aren’t, the government won’t second-guess you. Harvard might, though.

</p>

<p>Or private scholarship foundations which run scholarships geared towards certain URM groups. </p>

<p>Incidentally, some law school friends knew of some classmates who ended up failing to qualify for their local state bar or were put through the third degree by their respective state bar association admission committees over “character and fitness” concerns because they were found to have blatantly lied or had serious honesty/integrity issues over claiming URM status for law school admissions/private scholarships when they didn’t actually fit the definitions as set by said institutions/foundations. </p>

<p>Even if we’re not talking official institutions, it’s also something which can cause individuals to regard such folks as ignorant about the purpose of URM/AA and/or folks with serious honesty/integrity issues…like that ORM HS classmate who openly bragged about claiming African-American status for college admissions even though his family wouldn’t be considered such under most US/university adcom/URM private scholarship foundation definitions.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

However, he still calls himself African American, which is accurate – just as an immigrant from Italy would be an Italian American.

But “African-American” does not, in fact, mean any American born in Africa, or descended from people born in Africa. Here, for example, is the Census Bureau definition:

Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as “Black, African Am., or Negro”; or report entries such as African American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.

It might be debatable, I suppose, whether a person whose family was from China, but who was born in Italy, can be an Italian-American or not. But Italian-American just may not be defined in the same way as African-American.</p>

<p>It’s possible, of course, to define words any way you like–and it seems logical, on its face, to say that an American born in Africa is an African-American. But in this case, there exist more official definitions of the term which exclude that possibility for non-black people. (This is putting aside the possibility of claiming to be black even if you really aren’t.)</p>

[Marsian]

<p>I agree that ethnic diversity is an important consideration when making decisions such as those college admissions offices must make, but it concerns me that we are using terms that are not precise and that do not, on their face, mean what they are supposed to mean. By using imprecise terms, we are opening the door to too much interpretation. Many “white” people have darker skin than many “black” people. Many “white” people and Arabic people have come here from Africa. Some people from India consider themselves “Asian” and some do not. Is there a way to label categories without using imprecise terms such as “white,” “African-American,” “Asian,” etc.?</p>

<p>Maybe we should list ethnicity by continents/subcontinents and use the term “indigenous peoples”. An applicant could check as many boxes as apply. For example, box A would be “descended from the indigenous peoples of sub-Saharan Africa”; box B would be “descended from the indigenous peoples of Western Europe”; box C would be “descended from the indigenous peoples of Northern Africa and the Middle East”, etc. Is is too much to ask that people have enough basic understanding of the term “indigenous peoples” and geography to know which box(es) to check?</p>

[Bay]

<p>Marsian</p>

<p>The problem with that approach is that it would enable the White Supremacist to be admitted as a black man, even if he doesn’t identify himself that way.</p>

[Marsian]

<p>No more than he can now. As long as people can self-identify, they can choose whatever they want. This man, however, unless he has a total change of heart, isn’t going to say he’s “black,” “African-American,” “descended from the indigenous peoples of sub-Sarahan Africa,” however it’s identified.</p>

[Bay]

<p>It is not the same to me. An otherwise White person who knows (via DNA testing or whatever) can legitimately claim they are “descended from sub-Saharan Africa,” but they cannot claim to be “black,” unless they are lying.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

Maybe we should list ethnicity by continents/subcontinents and use the term “indigenous peoples”. An applicant could check as many boxes as apply. For example, box A would be “descended from the indigenous peoples of sub-Saharan Africa”; box B would be “descended from the indigenous peoples of Western Europe”; box C would be “descended from the indigenous peoples of Northern Africa and the Middle East”, etc. Is is too much to ask that people have enough basic understanding of the term “indigenous peoples” and geography to know which box(es) to check?

This is pretty much how the Census Bureau defines terms like Asian and African-American.</p>

[Marsian]

<p>I think the Census Bureau should take away the terms and just use the definitions.</p>

<p>Really, though, issues of diversity and discrimination aren’t about how people identify themselves or what their racial/ethnic makeup is. Those are irrelevant. People aren’t discriminated against/favored/viewed a certain way based on what box(es) they would choose to check. Rather, it is all about how they are perceived by others based mainly on appearance (skin color and facial features), but also on voice (pronunciation and accent) and even name.</p>

<p>Two people can share an identical ethnic heritage and yet be perceived as being from two different ethnic groups. I know three blood-related siblings with a diverse ethnic heritage. One looks East Asian. Another looks Anglo-Saxon. The third looks like an indigenous person from Central America. Such beautiful diversity! If we continue to use labels, others would categorize them as Asian, White, and non-White Hispanic, yet they are birth siblings! With non-labeled choices, we can move away from these kinds of artificial terms.</p>

[Lergnom]

<p>BTW, the idiot in question was arrested a few days ago for trying to intimidate people by standing near them with his finger on the trigger. There’s a picture of him and some other complete loser walking around.</p>

[romanigypsyeyes]

<p>[Cobb</a> taken into custody for toting guns in Leith](<a href=“http://m.bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/cobb-taken-into-custody-for-toting-guns-in-leith/article_7d606fea-4f2f-11e3-b158-0019bb2963f4.html?mobile_touch=true]Cobb”>http://m.bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/cobb-taken-into-custody-for-toting-guns-in-leith/article_7d606fea-4f2f-11e3-b158-0019bb2963f4.html?mobile_touch=true)</p>

<p>WHY in Hades are we keeping a hate crimes fugitive here? Why is he not back in Canada?</p>

[aegrisomnia]

<p>^ Well, not all people agree with Canada’s (and many countries’) hate speech laws. In my opinion, they’re incompatible with democracy, and I’d consider people fleeing them justified in seeking asylum here. I mean, a cursory search turns up the following text:</p>

<p>

It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

</p>

<p>This is what I’d call a thought crime. While I don’t necessarily agree with this guy - in fact, I think he’s either a histrionic crybaby or a dangerous lunatic (maybe both) - it seems entirely reasonable that people would flee from persecution under unjust laws, and I’m happy that I live in a country that lets me have unfashionable opinions.</p>

[CPUscientist3000]

<p>I forgot I posted but…</p>

<p>RacinReaver - I don’t care what culture someone is. That doesn’t influence their ethnicity. In your adoption example, the adopted child is still indigenous South American. Period. Culturally they are “white American” as you said the adopted child was raised to be “white”. </p>

<p>Also, African American does NOT mean someone born/raised in Africa and moved to America. An ethnically Italian person born/raised in Africa and then moving to America is ethnically ITALIAN. Culturally, African. Someone’s ethnicity doesn’t change based on where they grow up. African American is an ethnicity. The confusion comes in because we use “— American” differently for different races. Someone who is say 100% Kenyan and was born and raised in America isn’t African American. They’re Kenyan. Whether or not they identify with Black American culture is a different story and doesn’t affect their ETHNICITY (DNA). If I moved to Africa and lived until I was 100 there, I’m still not going to be ETHNICALLY African. </p>

<p>It REALLY doesn’t matter whether someone has “ties” to that country. European American means having descended from ETHNIC Europeans. So if your ancestors came on the Mayflower and were ETHNICALLY, say, British, (and your descendants thereafter), you are European American. Again, the confusion comes up because we use the “American” suffix differently for different categories. </p>

<p>No one is “American” except for Native Americans. They are the only true “Americans”, where the preceding word can be dropped and the “American” part still be ethnically true.</p>

[sorghum]

<p>

The problem with that approach is that it would enable the White Supremacist to be admitted as a black man, even if he doesn’t identify himself that way.

</p>

<p>But such a person would add valuable diversity, which is supposed to be the point, after all.</p>

[alcibiade]

<p>For anyone who knows history, ethnic groups and even races are nothing but an intellectual construct, a way to try to divide people into fictional hierarchies. We are all mutts far more than we know. The genetic check is a good thing.</p>