Is it the same

[Steve James]

Psychologically, perhaps. A person feels from a young age that he or she has the wrong identity. Does this legitimize his or her decision? Does it make it "right" or "wrong"?

Since "it seems the same," what is your opinion of it? Do you support their decisions or ... what?

[Taste of Death]

Homo Sapiens is the race. There are not different races among humanity.

[Steve James]

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: Let Rachel Dolezal Be as Black as She Wants to Be

She's given me the courage to reveal my true identity.

I sympathize with the dilemma of Rachel Dolezal, the head of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP whose parents maintain that she is not any part black, as she has claimed (#whiteisthenewblack). See, I too have been living a lie. For the past 50 years I’ve been keeping up this public charade, pretending to be something I’m not. Finally, in the wake of so many recent personal revelations by prominent people, I’ve decided to come out with the truth.

I am not tall (#shortstuff).

Although I’ve been claiming to be 7’2” for many decades, the truth is that I’m 5’8”. And that’s when I first get out of bed in the morning. Just goes to show, you tell a lie often enough and people believe you. I expect there will be some who will demand I give back the championship rings and titles that I accumulated during my college and professional basketball career because I was only able to win them by convincing other players that they had no chance against my superior height. How could these achievements have any lasting meaning if I’m not really as tall as Wikipedia says I am?

The evidence against Dolezal does seem pretty damning. Her birth parents have decided to express their parental love by outing her in response to a legal dispute they have with her (#returnworld’sbestparentstrophy). They offered photos of a farm-fresh Rachel looking like she just stepped out of the General Store in Mayberry and a white-on-white birth certificate. Some siblings have also attested that she’s not black, though she was raised alongside four adopted black children. Dolezal herself has just stepped aside from her position at the NAACP.

Despite all this, you can’t deny that Dolezal has proven herself a fierce and unrelenting champion for African-Americans politically and culturally. Perhaps some of this sensitivity comes from her adoptive black siblings. Whatever the reason, she has been fighting the fight for several years and seemingly doing a first-rate job. Not only has she led her local chapter of the NAACP, she teaches classes related to African-American culture at Eastern Washington University and is chairwoman of a police oversight committee monitoring fairness in police activities. Bottom line: The black community is better off because of her efforts.

At no time in history has the challenge of personal identity seemed more relevant. Olympic champion Bruce Jenner struggled for years with her gender identity and only at the age of 65, as Caitlyn Jenner, seems to have come to some peace with it. The same with many in the gay community who have battled internal and external demons before embracing their true selves. The difference is that these people faced a biological imperative rather than a free will choice of orientation (#readthesciencebeforepostingoutrage). Dolezal chose to identify with a racial group she was not born into, like Sean Connery as the Japanese expert in Rising Sun.

The thing about race is that, scientifically, there is no such thing. As far back as 1950, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) released the conclusions of an international group of anthropologists, geneticists, sociologists, and psychologists that stated that the concept of race was not a scientific entity but a myth. Since then, one scientific group after another has issued similar conclusions. What we use to determine race is really nothing more than some haphazard physical characteristics, cultural histories, and social conventions that distinguish one group from another. But, for the sake of communication, we will continue to misuse the word, myself included, in order to discuss our social issues so everyone understands them. As far as Dolezal is concerned, technically, since there is no such thing as race, she’s merely selected a cultural preference of which cultural group she most identifies with. Who can blame her? Anyone who listens to the Isaac Hayes song, “Shaft,” wants to be black—for a little while anyway (#who’sthecatwhowon’tcopout).

Al Jolson, once considered the most popular entertainer in the world, rose to fame wearing blackface. He also used his considerable influence to help blacks. At one time, he was the only white man allowed into some of the nightclubs in Harlem. Ironically, Jolson admitted that when he performed the same songs without blackface he never felt he did as good a job. Some critics say it’s because while singing in blackface, he was singing for all downtrodden people, including his own Jewish people. And he found his strength and passion and power while identifying with another culture. Maybe like Quentin Tarantino in Jackie Brown and Django Unchained.

So, does it really matter whether Rachel Dolezal is black or white?

Dr. King said we should be judged by the content of character rather than color of skin, which is what makes this case so difficult. So, yes, it does matter. Apparently lying to employers and the public you’re representing when the lie benefits you personally and professionally is a deficit in character. However, the fight for equality is too important to all Americans to lose someone as passionate as she is and who has accomplished as much as she has. This seems more a case of her standing up and saying, “I am Spartacus!” rather than a conspiracy to defraud. Let’s give her a Bill Clinton Get Out of Jail Free card on this one (#Ididnothavesex) and let her get back to doing what she clearly does exceptionally well—making America more American.

It’s given me the courage to also say, “I am Spartacus. All 5’8” of me.”

http://time.com/3921404/rachel-dolezal- ... ul-jabbar/

[windwalker]

Psychologically, perhaps. A person feels from a young age that he or she has the wrong identity. Does this legitimize his or her decision? Does it make it "right" or "wrong"?

Since "it seems the same," what is your opinion of it? Do you support their decisions or ... what?

It causes me to flash back to the many conversations with the black NCOs I've had the pleasure
and honer of serving with and leading in the unites I served in.

They felt and expressed negatively about the LBGT community using the same rhetoric and justification for their movement as those
used in the civil rights movement. This was a while back. Many of their arguments where the sames ones used here. Its funny hearing them again.

I think it gets down to perceived societal entitlements based on sex or race, in other words some feel they've gained some benefit
from the change that in the end is really not clear whether its a choice or not.

In one case she has done good works and was accepted by the group, suddenly when its made known shes not really part of the group
the witch hunt begins to discredit what ever shes done in life by the some of the very groups she feels akin to.

In the other case, the group understands and seems to applaud the choice to make it known and live the life that best reflects who the person feels he, she, it is.

Maybe the fist group feels they lose something if anyone can now claim to be part of them, where as the other group gains normality the more people acknowledge them.
Hard to say.

I dont understand how one can accept one with out the other. A man or woman can feel like a woman or man and take steps to make life changes that reflect this, a person feels
more closer to a group or idea and also takes life changes to reflect it.
I would have to say it doens matter much what the outer group thinks or says, it does matter what the inner group feels and says.

Had the black community embraced her as one of their own, no one would have said anything it would be a non-issue, but then it might open the gates as to what
being black is. In her case it seems she was thrown under the bus...despite according to some a life of supporting and representing the causes she had a passion for.


edited: regarding HI

they have an unofficially holiday there

Kill Haole Day is an annual event that some believe has occurred in some of Hawaiʻi's schools.
On the last day of school before summer vacation, non-white students are said to harass and sometimes attack white students.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_Haole_Day

Newspaper columnist Lee Cataluna wrote in 2010, "In terms of actual, first-person, eyewitness accounts of Kill Haole Day, no one had any [incidents] that happened in the last three decades. Not one teacher, not one police officer, not one victim or perpetrator."[4]

on Dec. 31, 2008, the U.S. Department of Education released a report that concluded there was "substantial evidence that students experienced racially and sexually derogatory name-calling on nearly a daily basis on school buses, at school bus stops, in school hallways and other areas of the school."[citation needed]

The epithets included names such as "fucking haole," "haole crap", "haole cunt" and "haole whore," according to the report. Students were told "go home" and "you don't belong here." Most of the slurs were directed by "local" or non-white students at Caucasians, especially those who were younger, smaller, light-skinned and blond.

The report also concluded that school officials responded inadequately or not at all when students complained of racial harassment. Students who did complain were retaliated against by their antagonists."[5]

ya think

having lived in HI, its a nice place quite different from the mainland

[Steve James]

Had the black community embraced her as one of their own, no one would have said anything it would be a non-issue,

This woman's actions has nothing to do with the Black community, and "they" have no reason to feel they should have done anything differently. However, it's clearly not true that she wasn't accepted as "one of their own" by them. And, if you mean, after she was "outed" by her own parents, it's not true that the Black community has rejected her. She would have been accepted as an NAACP member even if had said she was White. In fact, some in the community argue that being White and fighting for human rights is a way more valuable example. I agree, btw. Moreover, the leadership of the NAACP has had White members since its inception. Her being White was a non-issue to Black people. Her claims of being Black bothered some White people. She resigned because she was embarrassed, not because she is White.

They felt and expressed negatively about the LBGT community using the same rhetoric and justification for their movement as those used in the civil rights movement. This was a while back. Many of their arguments where the sames ones used here. Its funny hearing them again.

Have no idea what Black people have said to you before, and I'm not going to argue anything based on what I've heard White people say in the past. That's not arrogance. It's just the fact that I wouldn't have the guts to tell White people what White people think --especially when I can talk directly to White people here and now. I don't expect that you'll read the rest, this is what one Black guy thinks. Tell your friends.

You're absolutely right that there are Black people who feel that the LGBT community is co-opting the goals (?) of the Civil Rights Movement by claiming that their (LGBT) issues are the same. My response to them is simple. 1) The CRM was really a Human Rights Movement that had simple goals, primary of which was equal treatment under the law --specifically for American citizens. Sure, the focus was on African-Americans in the South, but the effect was much wider than that. Civil Rights demonstrations were adopted by the anti-War movement, the Women's Rights movement, and yes, the gay rights/pride movement. If the CRM was just for Black people, then some Black people might be upset that gays seek the right to marry the same way that laws had to be removed for Blacks to marry Whites. But, I say, screw those Black (and White) people who feel that way. It's their right, but oppression is oppression --no matter the excuse (whether race, religion, sex, sexual preference, age, etc). And, I think it's stupid to feel that one is in a competition for sympathy, and gays marrying has no effect on me or Black people, in general.

2. Otoh, there are plenty of Black LGBT people, just as there are Black women, and even Black transgender gay men. So, practically speaking, if someone claims to want to look out for Black interests, that should include All Black people. Black people, under no circumstances, allow their vision of justice to be clouded by the usual purveyors of bigotry. It's true that there are those who forget. but I don't condemn them. They need to be educated. I've lived through times when Black nationalists ragged on Black integrationists who ragged on Black socialists who supported keeping Black women in their domestic places. It's interesting today because, even in my own department, there is a Jamaican professor who also thinks that Blacks in the gay movement detract from the Black movement. Ha. He's from Jamaica, where violence against gays is widespread.

Anyway, there is a long history behind the conflict between the gay movement and others. It's too long to discuss, but it goes to the issue of demanding "manhood" status in the US. On one hand, it was necessary for Black women to subscribe to that goal and submerge their own. I.e., in the 50s and early 60s, the ideal was to have a family like the ones on tv (a man with a good job, a woman who was satisfied being a housewife, etc). That changed in the 70s and the Women's Lib movement. But, shucks, they still make less on average than men. So, I think they should continue to fight for the rights that I have. Your opinion and mileage may differ.

This actually goes to your statement about the Black soldiers you've served with, but

[windwalker]

I don't expect that you'll read the rest, this is what one Black guy thinks. Tell your friends.

wow, I thought you where just a guy expressing a view point.
keep writing, get it all out....good reading.

[Steve James]

You mentioned your children. I have a daughter with a woman from Spain. She "identifies" with African-Americans, perhaps a bit because she lives in NYC and looks a bit like me (pats self on back). But, what is she? That's a question that we discuss, and the answer is way more complicated than American racial perceptions of politics. For example, she speaks Spanish fluently, but she's not exactly Spanish. Oh, she has her EU passport from Spain. But, her mom's from Barcelona, and considers herself Catalan, not Castellana (Spanish). The Catalunyans actually want their own country and have their own language --which is my daughter's second native tongue. Otoh, here in the states, suppose she has to fill out an application? Spaniards are Not Hispanic or Latino; they're European: Period. But, everybody knows that Europeans are White, right? So, would my daughter be honest if she applied for a job as an Hispanic, African-American or "White" (i.e., "Spanish-American")? Or, would she be lying?

Fortunately, I can tell her what my peeps have told me. "Use their prejudices against them." "Never let someone's opinion of you become your opinion of yourself." "There are people who'll have a problem with your race or with race in general. Let it be their problem, not yours. You just do you."

[windwalker]

As a father, I can relate to that,
My daughters, can read, write and speak the language, look Korean or some feel Chinese.
They decide their own way. The 2nd one wanted to be a singer, just just any singer, a Korean singer, my advice to the 2nd one was that be careful about putting her self in that box. You may not know, the Koreans have a word for half Koreans. I dont think many outside really understand the closed nature
of some cultures, Quite hard to overcome this. In some cases its an advantage to be in between so to speak, in others not.

The 1st daughter can relate to both cultures, can also speak Chinese, and decided
to make her own way based on her self,,,she dosnt let other peoples junk into her mind.

everybody knows that Europeans are White

I dont know do they? I think the term "white" really is only used in the US,
with other groups tending to identify with their culture, what ever it may be.

In the Army outside the US, everyone tended to be called American no matter
what their ethnicity was.

Once knew an Irish guy,,he once told me "I'm not white, I'm Irish"
Where I work its 90% Vietnamese, many can not speak English.
A couple of co workers are mixed, one guy blk, the other white.
both are Vietnamese and speak limited English.

anyway,,,my point in all of this was that I felt it was the same,
that people change what they look like to fit what they feel like.

With some groups its accepted with others not. The groups themselves
tend to be the determining factor.

posted to read others view points on it.
thanks to all who posted...

[Steve James]

I think the term "white" really is only used in the US, with other groups tending to identify with their culture, what ever it may be.

It's only used in the Americas. In the DR, the national identity card has five categories (blanco, indio claro, indio, indio oscuro, negro); most people are indio, and genetically there's a good basis for that. In Brazil, there are similar categories, as there are all over the Caribbean. Nowhere, however, is it as simple as White and Black.

But, in the US, White is applied to all Europeans --with exceptions for immigrants. If you come from Poland, Italy, England, and anywhere in Europe. But, that's relatively new, and started in the US. In the 18th century, the Irish weren't considered "White." See http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-Whit ... 0415963095 . The Italians and others weren't considered White because the term referred to WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants). There were cases that went to the Supreme Court over the issue of people demanding the right to be citizens because they were White. For ex., there was Thind v US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ingh_Thind . Thind was a Caucasian (another totally invented category), but was not White because he was from India.

Yeah, in the US, we have Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, etc., but none are like Italians or Irish. Btw, many African-American orators copied speeches from Irish orations for independence from England, but I digress. The guy you wrote about is right. He's Irish, not "White" because that's just a category that was made up to divide the masters from the slaves, or should I say the people to whom God had given rights from those who only had privileges. Moreover, I know what people will call me, African-American --while I shake my head in wonder. But, I know I'm just American or USAmerican. I ain't Jamaican or Canadian, and they're a lot closer that "Africa." I belong to the L1 haplogroup, fwiw.

[Bao]

"White" and "Aryan" belong to words that here in Europe are used frequently by nationalists, racists and neo-nazi people.

[chud]

Spaniards are Not Hispanic or Latino;

Wrong. While Hispanic is a broad term, it does indeed apply to Spaniards.

His·pan·ic
/hiˈspanik/
adjective
1. of or relating to Spain or to Spanish-speaking countries, especially those of Latin America.
noun
1. a Spanish-speaking person living in the US, especially one of Latin American descent.

[Steve James]

Wrong. While Hispanic is a broad term, it does indeed apply to Spaniards.

Wrong. Unless you mean the region the Romans referred to as Hispania. Cubans and Mexicans aren't from there. Hispanic, in the US, applies generally to people who were colonized by Spain --and generally speak Spanish. Spaniards do not consider themselves Hispanic, and Hispanics from the Americas are never considered Spaniards nor European. It's more complicated than that, there are Basques, Gallicians and other smaller ethnicities in Spain who don't consider themselves Spanish. It's like saying that the Scots, Irish, and Welsh are English or Englishmen. Ask them. Don't stick your nutty terms on 'em.

Hispanic became widely used in the US (census, specifically) because, in general, people from Spain and its colonies were considered White. Anthony Quinn, Ricardo Montalban, Desi Arnaz, Fernando Lamas were Mexicans, Cuban and Argentine --and don't think for a minute that they weren't considered White. They were Latin lovers. When more brown-skinned Mexicans and South Americans started coming over the border, the gov't created a new category for the 1970 (iinm) census: "Hispanic." Later on, certain cities invented categories like White-Hispanic and non-White Hispanic to define the terms.

At any rate, today --among most educated Europeans-- there is no question that Spaniards are White. They're just Spaniards. Now, if you are arguing that Mexican and Cubans are White, go ahead. Btw, most people in S. America aren't Hispanic either. That's because they speak Portuguese.

The term "Hispanic" broadly refers to the culture, peoples, or nations with a historical link to Spain. The term commonly applies to countries once colonized by Spain, particularly the countries of Latin America that were colonized by Spain. It could be argued that the term should apply to all Spanish-speaking cultures or countries, as the historical roots of the word specifically pertain to the Iberian region. It is also difficult to label a culture with one term, such as Hispanic, as the customs, traditions, beliefs and art forms (music, literature, dress, architecture, cuisine or others) vary widely depending on country and even within the regions of said country. The Spanish language and culture is the main culture.[6][7]

So, you can call them Hispanic, but they don't consider themselves so. That's what counts, since we're talking about identity.

[Steve James]

http://www.census.gov/topics/population ... rigin.html
Here's the official scoop from the government. Trust 'em or not.

About Hispanic Origin
The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requires federal agencies to use a minimum of two ethnicities in collecting and reporting data: Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. OMB defines "Hispanic or Latino" as a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.

People who identify with the terms “Hispanic” or “Latino” are those who classify themselves in one of the specific Hispanic or Latino categories listed on the decennial census questionnaire and various Census Bureau survey questionnaires – “Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano” or ”Puerto Rican” or “Cuban” – as well as those who indicate that they are “another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin.”

The 2010 Census question on Hispanic origin included five separate response categories and one area where respondents could write in a specific Hispanic origin group. The first response category was intended for respondents who do not identify as Hispanic. The remaining response categories (“Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano”; “Puerto Rican”; “Cuban”; and “another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin”) and write-in answers can be combined to create the OMB category of Hispanic.

Note that on the 2010 census the category that is not specifically stated.

Data on Hispanic subgroups other than Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban
The American Community Survey (ACS) has data on these groups. In the survey questionnaire, the Hispanic-origin question obtained write-in responses of Hispanic subgroups other than the major groups of Mexican, Cuban, and Puerto Ricans. Persons with other Hispanic origins (e.g.,Salvadoran, Nicaraguan, Argentinean) were able to write in their specific origin group. The Census Bureau's code list contains over 30 Hispanic or Latino subgroups.

Note that the Major groups of Hispanics are Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban, and that "others" are Salvadoran, etc. Ya'd think that Spanish would be a major group, and at least be one of the minor groups.

[windwalker]

Millions of Americans changed their racial or ethnic identity from one census to the next

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -the-next/

Is It a Crime?

After news of her "false" claims emerged, the city of Spokane has launched an investigation into whether or not Rachel broke any city policies.

If the city has an ethics policy that prohibits lying or making materially false statements on city applications, Rachel may have violated city policy. However, is identifying as African American while your birth certificate identifies you as Caucasian a lie?

When men identify as women, or women identify as men, is that a lie?
The wording of the application may also be relevant. Arguably, saying "I am" may be more of a "lie" than "I identify as."

Or, was Rachel's claim a legal violation because she received a benefit that she wouldn't have gotten if she identified as Caucasian?

If she misrepresented a material fact to gain money or other things of value like a scholarship, that would ordinarily be fraud.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2 ... crime.html

just checking the obvious question is it illegal to claim what one is not
just reading its doesn't seem clear.

Hunter's primary argument on appeal was that UPS discriminated against him based on his non-conformity to gender stereotypes or his being perceived as transgendered. The district court found that Hunter failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because there was no evidence that UPS interviewer knew Hunter was transgendered, or perceived him as transgendered and discriminated against him on that basis. The Eighth Circuit agreed.

The appellate court found that the most compelling evidence to support Hunter's transgendered discrimination theory was his apparel, but the Eighth Circuit noted, "To hang a rule of law on fashions that may change with the times would create an unworkable rule."

https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=7733B5FF93DA9260

They didnt know how to phrase the law...maybe later they will find a way to.

Interesting times.

[Steve James]

How many Black genes doe it take for one to be Black? Is it a lie to say that you're Black if your grandmother was Black? (Ok, let's ignore that it was illegal NOT to say you were Black if that was the case --in the U.S.. You must have heard of Plessy v. Ferguson and the famous "separate but equal" Supreme Court decision?

Due to his "fair" appearance, Plessy could have ridden in a railroad car restricted to people classified as white. However, under the racist policies then in force, he was classified as "1/8 black" or, according to the language of the time, an octoroon. Hoping to strike down segregation laws, the Citizens' Committee of New Orleans (Comité des Citoyens) recruited Plessy to deliberately violate Louisiana's 1890 separate-car law. To pose a clear test, the Citizens' Committee gave notice of Plessy's intent to the railroad, which opposed the law because it required adding more cars to its trains.[2]

On June 7, 1892, Plessy bought a first-class ticket on a train from New Orleans and sat in the car for white riders only. The Committee had hired a private detective with arrest powers to take Plessy off the train at Press and Royal streets, to ensure that he was charged with violating the state's separate-car law and not some other misdemeanor.[2]

Everything that the committee had organized occurred as planned, except for the decision of the Supreme Court in 1896.

Yeah, they thought that because he looked White and was only 1/8 Black that the SC would see how wrong segregation was (for them, primarily). Ooops, bad move. Read the decision.

On May 18, 1896, Justice Henry Billings Brown delivered the majority opinion in favor of the State of Louisiana. In part, the opinion read, "The object of the Fourteenth Amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based on color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to the either. … If the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of voluntary consent of the individuals."

The lone dissenting vote was cast by Justice John Marshall Harlan, a Kentucky Republican. In his dissenting opinion, the first Justice Harlan wrote, "I am of opinion that the statute of Louisiana is inconsistent with the personal liberty of citizens, white and black, in that state and hostile to both the spirit and letter of the Constitution of the United States."

The "Separate but Equal" doctrine, enshrined by the Plessy ruling, remained valid until 1954, when it was overturned by the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education and later outlawed completely by the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. Though the Plessy case did not involve education, it formed the legal basis of separate school systems for the following fifty-eight years.

But, ... U.S. history notwithstanding, how much White blood makes it illegal to claim anything else? Wow, "mixed" (another dumb term) children already have it hard enough. Imagine if they'd get charged for not admitting or admitting some aspect of their identity. Would it be legal for Obama to claim that he was White? I dunno. Otoh, I can claim that I'm White or that I'm a 7'2"" center for the NY Knicks, I'd probably get lots more dates ... or not.

Anyway, I agree that if Rachel was getting grant money intended for an African-American, then she committed a fraud. But, that's no different than if she lied about her income or her name. Now, it would be interesting to see whether some institutions start giving race tests (:)). Of course, they'd have to have some baseline. I wonder what the percentage of what would be. Or, they could just have a color test. You know, like the old Cotton Club "paper bag test." If you were darker than a paper bag, you couldn't be a dancer.

Personally, I think she should give back anything tangible that she got based on who she was. I'm not sure about racial identification being flexible or fluid. I think that "race" in the US is almost totally based on appearance. We don't have elaborate categories of mixtures; so, we just have White, Black and made up subgroups like Hispanic. Nobody checks blood or genes; they just go by what they see. But, appearance "is" flexible and fluid. People change shades all summer, if they can. It's possible to be light-skinned and still be Black. Who can say that such a person shouldn't identify as African-American. After all, the reason such a person has light skin is often because there was violence somewhere in his or her past, and that person was forced to remain African-American. People really don't discriminate against genes they can't see.