An outfit called blackamericaweb.com thinks so. An article there today likens the appointment of someone who opposes affirmative action to head the Civil Rights Commission to appointing someone who opposes the distribuition of flu vaccines “to a board that will determine whether to make flu vaccines available to the public.”
Previous Entry: Quotas Exceeded
Next Entry: Blurb Of The Day
It does seem strange that so many liberals equate Civil Rights with preferences, or the removal of preferences with “segregation”.
I think that what is fascinating is the insistence that racism is like the flu, but only white people are susceptible to it. In my experience that disease strikes black people much more frequently… racism, that is.
As I’ve been trying to say repeatedly on this board… and have been subjected to endless name calling for so doing… one view is prohibited in this debate. Even Mr. Rosenberg seems to believe this point of view is somehow, unfit to be discussed.
The authors of blackamericaweb.com want stuff for themselves. Now, John, I don’t care a whit for the authors of blackamericaweb.com. Don’t care whether they stay alive for another day. If God strikes them dead, I doubt that I’ll notice, and if I do I won’t care. I see them quite clearly as one of a number of folks who want stuff, including me. I don’t buy their attempt to turn their desire to feed at the trough into a moral issue. They’re just greedy like everybody else, and their arguments are so much flatulence to me. Sure, they think that they’re entitled. So do I.
So, John, when will my view be legal? It is precisely Cobra’s view. Beneath all the pretty arguments, he just wants to feed at the trough. Frankly, I don’t care about his moral arguments for why he wants to feed at the trough. I reject them totally, no matter how much sense they make to him or to anybody else. I’m not even particularly interested in hearing his reasons, since he routinely rejects my reasons for feeding at the trough as “racism.” I am merely returning the favor.
All I care about is my turn to feed at the trough, and I’ll work to defeat anybody who stands in my way. Which makes me exactly the same as Cobra. It’s justified for him, but not for me. This is not a moral system which I will support, or even debate. Why, Mr. Rosenberg, do you insist that I am obliged to? My role in this debate is to ridicule the notion that these are moral issues. They are not. Pretending that these are moral issues means conceding the most important issue.
And we won’t get into the fact that affirmative action, as practiced today, is on its face a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
It is not the mission of the Commission to
Stephen:
So, John, when will my view be legal?
They’re legal now, if by “legal” you mean legal. If by “legal” you mean welcome here, they’re welcome now whenever you express them without ad hominem remarks and gratutitous insults.
All I care about is my turn to feed at the trough, and I’ll work to defeat anybody who stands in my way. Which makes me exactly the same as Cobra.
Which is the reason those of us who oppose discrimination based on race disagree with what you say.
Stephen’s argument is self-defeating.
Yes, he’s right – if we are to take Cobra’s argument for the reasons he describes, then we must take Stephen’s argument since it is equal in almost every way (beside the race to be preferred, of course). The irony then, is that if I buy what Cobra is saying, I’ll defer to Stephen, since I’m white.
Yet, I don’t buy Cobra, so I don’t buy Stephen. An argument ought not be dependent on the arguer. And it shouldn’t be as equally morally reprehensible as Cobra’s. So I reject Stephen’s argument, just like John.
However, Stephen’s argument could be appealing in time. It’s something we ought to all fear, but I might eventually have to buy into it. If over several years we make no progress toward true equality under the law, then it seems the only recourse is to just say “give me a piece of the pie too.”
JL writes:
>>>It does seem strange that so many liberals equate Civil Rights with preferences, or the removal of preferences with “segregation”.”
It seems strange to me that so many conservatives believe that “fairness” and “equality” actually existed in America at one point.
–Cobra
Funny, I wasn’t aware that we claimed it ever did — at least insofar as everyone having the exact same starting place and the exact same outcome. What we believe in is that you start where you start, and the rules are set to provide the opportunity to succeed, given work and luck.
And I’ll ask you this cobra — will we, a century from now, find my great-grandchildren receiving reparations for the racial discrimination imposed for generations in the name of achieving the version of equality Cobra wants to impose?
ThePrecinctChair writes:
>>>And I’ll ask you this cobra — will we, a century from now, find my great-grandchildren receiving reparations for the racial discrimination imposed for generations in the name of achieving the version of equality Cobra wants to impose?”
Hmmm, that depends. What race do you assume your great grandchildren will belong to?
–Cobra
Cobra,
Hmmm, that depends. What race do you assume your great grandchildren will belong to?
Well, given that the “one-drop rule” is alive and well, thanks largely to black leaders who object to people being permitted to describe themselves as “multiracial” on the grounds that it diminishes the officially-black percentage of the population . . . I’d say that’s a really good question, Cobra.
There are a lot of problems with that article. For one thing, it falsely claims that the liberal commissioners were “given the boot” early.
For another, the analogy it starts out with is wrong; the Commission does not “Determine whether to make flu vaccines available to the public.” It merely publishes reports evaluating the state of the flu season.
And for a third the “commission’s new report” isn’t even an official report — which is good, because it was simply a partisan attack on the administration. Essentially, it said, “Bush is conservative and favors conservative ideas, QED.” As if (as John always points out) only liberals are for civil rights.
It seems to me that a legitimate argument can be made that an individual who supports affirmative action should be prohibited from sitting on the US CCR. Like it or not, affirmative action is a policy that involves discrimination based upon some immutable characteristic. One of the roles of the CCR is to assess the impact that federal policy and laws have on equal protection and discrimination. In other words, their responsibility is to look at outcomes to ensure that law and policy are proper. An advocate of affirmative action has already assumed an outcome, and is espousing a process, instead of looking from actual outcomes back through the system to determine the existence or extent of a problem.
Sort of a convoluted way of saying if your favorite tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Michelle writes:
>>>Well, given that the “one-drop rule” is alive and well, thanks largely to black leaders who object to people being permitted to describe themselves as “multiracial” on the grounds that it diminishes the officially-black percentage of the population . . . I’d say that’s a really good question, Cobra.”
Technically, based upon the study of geneology in America, most people who describe themselves as “black” or “African-American” are at the minimum, 19% white. It also swings the other way, as there are millions of “allegedly white” people walking around with a fair percentage of negroid genetics in their make-up. This was painfully brought to light in a previous thread I believe you had commented on. This “multiracial” nomenclature or worse, “color-blind” movement is designed to do nothing more than discourage minority inclusion and outreach, while neutralizing attempts to monitor and document anti-minority discrimination activity. On its face, it could indeed look like a positive measure. But like petting a cute, caged bear at the zoo, there are things that sound great in concept that soon turns into tragedy for one or all parties involved.
–Cobra
Well, Cobra, at the risk of making things veer even further off-topic, how do you define “black”? How would you have others define it? It can’t be by skin color, because you argued in a previous thread that the Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Cubans, &c. in baseball aren’t actually “black” players, but Hispanics. It can’t be by genealogy alone, because of the facts you just laid out. So who gets to be black in, say, college admissions? And if someone asked whether you were “really” black, how would you prove it? I mean, in a way that would exclude all those immigrant baseball players.
Define “black” for me in such a way that a university (or anyone else) could tell who is actually black and who is not.
Michelle,
Don’t you realize that it is the like of Cobra who want to reestablish government agencies who will determine who really is “black” and who is not. Imagine the power of a government commission chaired by someone like Julian Bond who could set the rest of your life by determining whether who fit in a protected class or not.
Michelle states
“Define “black” for me in such a way that a university (or anyone else) could tell who is actually black and who is not. ”
I’ll take a shot at that one Michelle-
what would you say if I said “Self Identification. It has been my experience that people identify themselves according to their relevant social experiences. In other words, the manner in which people identify themselves “racially” corresponds directly to what others perceive them as.
Yes you are correct. There are dark skinned Dominicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, etc who identify themselves by nationality when they first arrive in this country. However, after years of experience with America’s informal, but rigid, caste system they begin to identify themselves as black Caribbeans, Cubans, etc. Their children drop the hyphen altogether.
I already know what your retort to this post is going to be – “If it just weren’t for those Civil Rights leaders keeping race alive at every opportunity Americans could get beyond race”. Unfortunately, such statements fly in the face of a mountain of evidence gathered from studies and surveys that measure people’s attitudes about issues such as interracial marriage,
employment, etc.
These studies make it clear that black
people aren’t the only ones with “race on the mind”.
This seems to be a good example of liberal racism (i.e. the notion that those minorities which benefit from AA are so inferior that they will never be able to function on a level playing field).
James,
You are making my point for me. Self-definition as black is fine; but obviously a university couldn’t run affirmative action programs on self-definition alone — not unless it was prepared to deal with massive fraud. I could “self-define” as “African-American” as well as the next person, and with some truth, because all our ancestors are ultimately African. But I would be fraudulent if I presented myself as “African-American” on a college application, because I am obviously not what affirmative action is supposed to favor (wrt race, not gender, I mean). But could you prove I am not black, if I were to insist that I am? How would you do so?
It was Cobra who wasn’t prepared to class certain baseball players as “black,” even though they’d be classed as such on appearance alone by most Americans (which means that they’d suffer the same disadvantages anyone classified on sight as “black” would). His point (as I recall it) was that baseball was racist, because there were so few black players. You’d never guess that if you looked at the players, rather than just reading the roster.
James,
Sorry, I meant to address this first, and then ended up not addressing it at all.
It has been my experience that people identify themselves according to their relevant social experiences. In other words, the manner in which people identify themselves “racially” corresponds directly to what others perceive them as.
Then why in hell not let people identify themselves racially as they see fit? Why not let them say they’re “multiracial,” &c.? If race is as one experiences it, and the one experiencing it knows it best, it seems ridiculous to force people to choose one race when they don’t themselves feel they belong to one race.
Michelle writes
“You are making my point for me. Self-definition as black is fine; but obviously a university couldn’t run affirmative action programs on self-definition alone – not unless it was prepared to deal with massive fraud.”
I disagree. You assume that the only documents people identify their race on are college applications.There are any number of already existing pieces of ID that ask people to identify their race-
birth certificates, drivers licenses, passports, etc. Asking people to provide
these documents so that their race can
be verified does not impose a special b
urden since instituions already use these documents to verify non-racial
information
presented on applications for credit and employment.
What about fraud?
Due to the nature of race in this country,and the advantages that white skin (idenification) offers, I can
guarantee you that there are VERY FEW white people posing as blacks on DLs and birth certificates. The downside of such a fraud outweighs any benefits: see http://www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/sen04/news/articles/art2003-239.htm
James,
You continually demonstrate what a racist you are because you keep seeing AA as only a black/white, stick it to the man terms.
I know many whites who claim to be Hispanic, and a huge number of whites who claim to be American Indians. The Washington Post had a story, “Not Affirmative, Sir” that reported that even the military acadamies to not try to validate ethnicity claims during the application process.
In my hypothetical example (hypothetical because my wife and I are unable to have children), I am assuming that my descendents will be what is generally classified as “white” by American society.
And assuming that by that time there has been a century and a quarter of explicit racial discrimination against whited in the form of affirmative action and minority set-aside programs, I again ask the question — will my great-grandchildren be eligible for reparations for the discrimination that they and their ancestors have suffered under these racially discriminatory programs?
This thread just shows how messy the whole concept of race is, particularly in America. One definition of African American (Cobra’s?) seems to be that one must appear black (skin color) and not be ethnic (Cuban, Puerto Rican, Brazilian) and have some traceable lineage to American (US) slaves.
I have many mixed race nieces and nephews (white and (black and/or latino)). Some look totally white, others latino, and still others black (although light skinned). How should they be classified (if at all)? All are living in mixed race, economically deprived neighborhood in the Northeast. All share the same ‘culture’ in dress, speach, music, etc. Yet, according to the rules of race in America, some are considered minority, others not. If the ones who appear white were to claim to be black (which they are by some definition – one drop?) they would probably be accused of fraud. My son is also bi-racial (white-Japanese) but grew up in a middle class environment, is proud of his Japanese heritage, but is not considered a minority. Very strange world we live in.
James,
You assume that the only documents people identify their race on are college applications. There are any number of already existing pieces of ID that ask people to identify their race — birth certificates, drivers licenses, passports, etc. Asking people to provide these documents so that their race can be verified does not impose a special burden since institutions already use these documents to verify non-racial information presented on applications for credit and employment.
James, you are, at least, misinformed. The standard info on a driver’s license includes [M/F], hair color, eye color, height, weight, and date of birth, together with a photo and a current address. That’s so in CA now, and it was so in NY when I got my first DL. There is no racial information on any DL so far as I know, apart from what you can infer from the photo and the hair and eye color.
My passport doesn’t even go so far; it gives my [M/F] and my date and place of birth, together with (again) a photo. Nothing else.
(Sorry about the [M/F] above; evidently a word appearing placidly on driver’s licenses and passports is filtered out by John’s hosting software. Understandable enough.)
I would be very surprised if birth certificates in the last forty years or so specified the races of the parents; I think it’s quite impossible that they specify the race of the child. You can get that information from the race of the parents only by making certain assumptions (such as, for example, that the child of one black parent and one white parent is black).
Of course, maybe you are suggesting that driver’s licenses and passports should be included in applications because there are photos in them, which give the admissions officers/hirers/whatever a chance to eyeball the applicant and see whether, according to their lights, s/he looks sufficiently black. I can imagine the admissions-office chatter now:
“Hey, Joe, this dude claims he’s black.”
“Nah, can’t be, his last name’s Nguyen.”
“But, look, here’s his driver’s license photo. Looks pretty dark to me.”
“Aw, call up his birth certificate. Maybe it’s a Vietnamese dad and a black mom.”
Do we really want to go there? Seriously?
Michelle
The CDC’s attitude towards self-reporting:
From the CDC
http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/Technic.html
“Race information on the birth certificate is considered to be more accurate than that on the death certificate because, on the birth certificate, race is generally reported by the mother at the time of delivery. ”
In almost every state that I am aware of you must identify the baby’s race on the BC. Additionally, a BC is typically required to obtain a DL or passport. Thus, info regarding ethnicity is recorded within the application process for these documents, if not on the actual documents themselves.
James,
So you are basically saying that universities, employers, &c., ought to be able not only to obtain the ordinary documents used to prove US citizenship or legal residency, but also information submitted to the issuing authorities when these documents were made? That’s an astonishing idea, and I would hope that the rest of the readers here would be appalled at universities or employers checking, not merely passports or driver’s licenses or state IDs, but the documents submitted in applying for them, in order to verify an applicant’s race.
I think you are conceding that driver’s licenses and passports don’t have a slot for “race” on them, and that birth certificates are the only “official” certification of race you can obtain. You are now suggesting that everyone who applies for a job ought to go about with multiple copies of his (or her) birth certificate, because we need an actual record of your race, dagnabbit, and “whatever your mother decided to say the day you were born” is plenty scientific enough for us. If your mother was Asian and your father was black, and she wanted you to be counted as Asian . . . why, then, you’re Asian-American, yes?
Michelle states
“So you are basically saying that universities, employers,etc., ought to be able not only to obtain the ordinary documents used to prove US citizenship or legal residency, but also information submitted to the issuing authorities when these documents were made? That’s an astonishing idea….”
Michelle, correct me if I am wrong, but universities are required by law to obtain similar information when students apply for financial aid. For example, a drug conviction disqualifies students from receiving financial aid.
Michelle states
“You are now suggesting that everyone who applies for a job ought to go about with multiple copies of his (or her) birth certificate, because we need an actual record of your race, dagnabbit, and “whatever your mother decided to say the day you were born” is plenty scientific enough for us.
Michelle – This statement is a little bit dishonest. As many studies have shown, employers can determine an applicants race using a number of different of proxies- name, high school of attendance, home address, and as hard as it is to believe- through identification at the inevitable job interview!!!
‘Michelle, correct me if I am wrong, but universities are required by law to obtain similar information when students apply for financial aid. For example, a drug conviction disqualifies students from receiving financial aid.’
They also inquire into my draft registration status.
“As many studies have shown, employers can determine an applicants race using a number of different of proxies- name, high school of attendance, home address…”
I’d be interested to know about those studies. I went to school with black people and live next door to black people, and I can’t believe there are no black people named Laura. Or that there aren’t millions of white Americans who can say pretty much the same thing. I’m sure race can be determined by those proxies for some people, especially by names, but I don’t believe it would be for enough people for it to be worth employers’ time to fool with it to any degree.
Laura states
” I can’t believe there are no black people named Laura…I don’t believe it would be for enough people for it to be worth employers’ time to fool with it to any degree.”
Laura, start believing. I posted on this very issue back in September
“But capable doesn’t always matter. A job recruiter for Fortune 500 companies in northern California revealed an ugly secret.
“There is rampant racism everywhere. And people who deny that are being na
James,
Michelle, correct me if I am wrong, but universities are required by law to obtain similar information when students apply for financial aid. For example, a drug conviction disqualifies students from receiving financial aid.
There are two problems here. The first is that checking whether a student has a drug conviction, or any other conviction for that matter, doesn’t involve documents a level back. (Nor does actus’ draft-registration-status point.) If I have to present a passport or a driver’s license or state ID, I do not also have to present the documents I had to submit in obtaining it. And driver’s licences, state IDs, and passports do not ordinarily list race (actually, I’m not aware that they ever list race).
The second problem, to put it as bluntly as possible (this having become a rather blunt discussion) is that whether you have been convicted of a drug crime, or whether you have registered for the draft, are questions easily settled with existing records and existing law. Whether you are black, or Hispanic, or Asian-American, or white, or whatever is not something defined by law, at least in this time, in this country. And, please God, may it remain so.
Suppose your mother is Cuban and your father white, and your family name is Johnson. Are you Hispanic? If it was your father who was Cuban and your mother white, and your name is Gonzalez, are you Hispanic? What if your mother was Cuban and your father Thai, and your name is Truong? Are you Hispanic? Are you Asian? Does it matter if your mother was a black Cuban? For that matter, are black Hispanics black, or Hispanic for affirmative action purposes? Suppose four grandparents, Irish, Chinese, Cherokee, and Kenyan . . .
Well, you see the point. Either we set up an impossibly complicated system of Nuremburg laws (and that name might suggest reasons why I think we should not), or we take everyone’s racial self-definition as they list it on their applications, or we insist on photos and let admissions officers guess which category is the best fit, or we leave off classifying like this at all. You know which I favor.
James,
This statement is a little bit dishonest. As many studies have shown, employers can determine an applicants race using a number of different of proxies- name, high school of attendance, home address, and as hard as it is to believe-through identification at the inevitable job interview!!!
No, James, no one can “determine” your race via any of these proxies. There are no neighborhoods you can assume to be absolutely mono-racial. There are no names that you can guarantee belong to a person of a particular race. There are not, so far as I know, any public high schools that are mono-racial by design, the occasional proposals for all-black-male academies all having been struck down.
And then
and as hard as it is to believe-through identification at the inevitable job interview!!!
In other words, you look at the candidate and pick the race. Sweet. So if a guy says he’s mixed-race and looks black to the evaluator, he’s black. If he says he’s black and looks a little too pale to the evaluator, he isn’t. You were arguing for self-description a little while back. What happens when the self-description and the evaluator’s racial judgment don’t reach the same result? Which trumps which?
Seriously, I’d like to know how you would handle this, because it looks to me like one of the more serious difficulties in your whole scheme.
Michelle writes:
>>>Seriously, I’d like to know how you would handle this, because it looks to me like one of the more serious difficulties in your whole scheme.”
The more informative question would be “how has AMERICA handled it.” What we wish to happen, and REALITY are often not the same thing.
–Cobra
As far as racial categories go these, about 1 in 5 SAT takers refuse to tell their race. In the census, more than that refuse to state.
I have never seen a current legal definition of “African-American” and I have never seen a government form that told me that declaration of race is mandatory and what would happen if I do not tell. (Read the Privacy Act Statement on most government forms if you do not know what I mean).
Another side of profiling on race (using names, address, school attendence) is that is punishes smart black kids who got into to top tier schools because some people will begin to suspect that they are not “really black.”
Laura,
The study James is talking about worked like this. First the researchers made up lists of male and female names near the top of the lists of black and white baby names something like 1980 — I’m not sure of the date, but it was basically the date they thought would correspond to that of the young men and women now hitting the job market. Second, they took these names out on the street and asked people whether the name suggested that the person was black or white; this whittled down their list. (They used only names strongly perceived as black or as white.) Third, they sent out resumes to various employers, using these first names and a pile of “neutral” (read “Anglo”) surnames, and checked the number of callbacks. On balance the “black” names (Keisha, LaTonya, Jerome, Tyrone, Jamal, &c.) got fewer callbacks, though some “white” names (Emily, for example) underperformed a lot of the “black” names.
Lots of trouble with a study like that, not least the particular time period chosen for the name selection, which seems to have been one in which the favored names for black children were particularly racially distinctive.
Cobra,
The more informative question would be “how has AMERICA handled it.” What we wish to happen, and REALITY are often not the same thing.
Well, you were the one who said that baseball players who would look “black” to any “evaluator” weren’t actually “black” because they were “Hispanic” instead. Suppose a dude says he’s Hispanic, and the interviewer looks at him and says, no, he’s black. Who’s right? You want this racial-preference mess, you figure out the details. But be thorough about it; make sure you’ve dealt with the Japanese mother/black father situation as against the black mother/Japanese one.
Michelle states
“No, James, no one can “determine” your race via any of these proxies. There are no neighborhoods you can assume to be absolutely mono-racial. There are no names that you can guarantee belong to a person of a particular race. There are not, so far as I know, any public high schools that are mono-racial by design, the occasional proposals for all-black-male academies all having been struck down.”
Michelle – I think you and I have gone off track with this discussion. Let me see if I can clarify some of my beliefs:
First of all, I’m not sure that anyone’s race, at least from a biological perspective, can be determined to an accuracy of 100%. However, that isn’t, nor has it ever been, the point. Race, to a large degree, is a social construct. In other words, “You are, what people think you are”. Halle Berry, for example, is the product of a “white” mother and a “black” father. Since each child receives 1/2 of its genes from each parent, I think one could say safely say that she is 1/2 black and 1/2 white. However, I’m sure if I had shown her picture to a casting agent (or anyone else for that matter) in the days before anyone knew of her background they would have identified her as black. What they would have done with information is another matter.
I think this point lies at the center of our conflicting visions. You seem to assume that the only way people can, or to be more accurate WILL, make a determination about someone’s race is if they request that information. I believe such arguments are esoteric. There are any number of ways, which I have previously identified, that people have at their disposal to make determinations about someone’s race. The question is “How do they process that information?”
James,
interesting that you should mention Halle Berry. I was just thinking of Mariah Carey, a woman I seriously didn’t know was a “black artist” for an embarrassing length of time. Really, to the naked eye she’s as plausibly Mexican or Mediterranean as black, if not more so.
I agree with you absolutely that race is a social construct; that what matters is how you are perceived, not who your grandparents were. But you see where this goes, don’t you? If you want to preserve racial preferences, then you will have to do it via perceived race. “Self-identification” is not sufficient; whatever your mother put on your birth certificate is not sufficient. The only thing that is sufficient is a panel looking at you and determining thereby that most people would class you as “black.” Or “Asian,” or whatever.
There are any number of ways, which I have previously identified, that people have at their disposal to make determinations about someone’s race. The question is “How do they process that information?”
Yes, yes, but my question was “what if this ‘any number of ways’ don’t all give the same answer?” What then?
Superdestroyer writes:
>>>I have never seen a current legal definition of “African-American” and I have never seen a government form that told me that declaration of race is mandatory and what would happen if I do not tell. (Read the Privacy Act Statement on most government forms if you do not know what I mean).”
Try buying a firearm. When you fill out Form 4473, in the upper right hand corner, you’ll see a box labeled “race.” If you don’t fill it in, by law, the gun dealer can’t sell it to you. If you lie on the form, you’re subject to a felony conviction.
Michelle writes:
>>>Well, you were the one who said that baseball players who would look “black” to any “evaluator” weren’t actually “black” because they were “Hispanic” instead. Suppose a dude says he’s Hispanic, and the interviewer looks at him and says, no, he’s black. Who’s right? You want this racial-preference mess, you figure out the details. But be thorough about it; make sure you’ve dealt with the Japanese mother/black father situation as against the black mother/Japanese one.”
Michelle, you’re phrasing this scenario as if the perception of the interviewer, admissions officer, loan administrator or similiar gatekeeper to access doesn’t matter, when in reality, as James puts so well, “You are what people think you are.” Plessy vs. Ferguson was a perfect example of this. Louisiana Parish Judge Ferguson declared that Homer Adolf Plessy was “black”, even though his geneology was 7/8ths white. Disimiliar physical characteristics, especially facial features and hair from the European standard would be a distinguishing factor. It is more than just skin color, as there is albanism among African Americans, as well as a tanning industry worth billions.
In most cases, it follows the golden rule…he who has the gold, makes the rules.
Take Tiger Woods. He has an African American (who is biracial himself) father and a Thai mother. He calls himself “Camblinasian”. But, to major media, and most of America, he is considered “black”, not matter what he calls himself. Even the most strident of racial observers has an opinion on Woods’ ethnicity:
“One could question if Tiger Woods is genetically a genuine Black, as he is at least one half Thai, plus his Father is a mixed-race Black. But, racial pedigree not withstanding, Tiger had the best of coaching and the highest of discipline since he was a toddler, and by playing so much competitive golf from an early age– he is both used to winning and used to what the sport’s commentators call “pressure.” It is the same type of experience and adaptation that athletes such as Michael Jordan or Jerry Rice possess, or for that matter a Joe Montana…
…Because of the emphasis many put on sports heroes, Woods ascendancy in the golf realm will simply add to myth that most Blacks are just like us.”
–David Duke
from an article on Stormfront’s website
Obviously, this is all WELL BEYOND what the original thread topic was, so I’ll try to right the ship by responding that YES, Affirmative Action is a neccessary part of civil rights for the same reason proactive law enforcement measures are taken to reduce crime.
–Cobra
Cobra,
Yes, well beyond the subject of the thread, but so was everything I’ve posted to it, I’m afraid. I don’t think we’re bothering anyone ;-)
It would be amusing to combine the two halves of your last post, wouldn’t it? Imagine Tiger Woods going in to purchase a firearm. If under “race” he puts “Cablinasian” [I think that’s how he spells it], is he “lying”? Would he be guilty of a felony? Suppose some other dude of dark complexion but half-Thai parentage said he was “Asian”? Would he be “lying,” and guilty of a felony? How can you be convicted of a felony for making a statement that no one can determine is true or false, because there is no legal standard? I get the impression some here are ready, indeed eager, to establish the legal standard. I’d much rather remove the law, but if if you want to draft the standard, there’s always that helpful document drafted at Wannsee to serve as a model. I do believe they sorted out every damn case they could think of.
I spent this whole thread trying to avoid mentioning Tiger Woods, but since he’s in here now, he doesn’t look black to me. If someone had made me guess from a photo, I would probably have said “Indonesian.”
Funny thing …
In Nigeria, certain subsets of the Ibo people, those from the states of Imo and Anambra in particular, tend to be VERY light skinned. Likewise with the Fulani up in northern Nigeria.
I know an Ibo woman who married a Irishman a few years back. If you were to see their children you would have a hard time believing that they were 50% black. What would James’ prospective race obsessed employer do then if he were to be interviewing their son Andrew Uzoma McLeigh?
Martin writes:
>>>What would James’ prospective race obsessed employer do then if he were to be interviewing their son Andrew Uzoma McLeigh?”
The employer, given America’s experience, would probably try to ascertain, maybe in a clandestine fashion, exactly what McLeigh’s background is. That’s the nature of ethnocentricity.
–Cobra