Liberals, why can't someone choose their race?

[[serious]]

Do you know how hard it is to join a tribe that your parents were not already officially members of? Do you know how to start from scratch and get in a tribe? Do you know how to get federal recognition for a nation?

They do not not let people walk in from the street, toss around a birth certificate, and call themselves an Indian.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

The question at hand is not whether it's easy or hard, but whether it's possible for someone who is 1/64th cherokee to do so.

And also, why would we assume that such a person's parents weren't in the tribe? After all, the current chief is 1/32nd cherokee. I don't know if his wife has any cherokee, but if she doesn't, then all 5 of his children would be good examples of 1/64th cherokee people who we can probably assume have their blue cards.


It does seem the goalposts are shifting. You began implying that someone who was 1/64 cherokee would be bared from federal scholarships for native americans. The first one that popped up on google did not exclude people based on blood quantum. Then it shifted to an implication that gaining tribal recognition was harder if you had a lower blood quantum. The cherokee nation's requirements are the same regardless of blood quantum.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Ha ha!! This is about how many white people are in your family tree, but that's not a question of DNA or genetics.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Try understanding what is being discussed....then maybe we can take you seriously....

 

[civilwarbuff]

Do you know how hard it is to join a tribe that your parents were not already officially members of? Do you know how to start from scratch and get in a tribe? Do you know how to get federal recognition for a nation?

They do not not let people walk in from the street, toss around a birth certificate, and call themselves an Indian.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

That's right....it has to be proved by lineage....

 

[civilwarbuff]

Actually you have to prove that an ancestor on the rolls is your ancestor I doubt they have a DNA test to prove someone is cherokee because I am actually enough cherokee to be on the rolls but my ancestors records were destroyed before the rolls were made so they were never included and thus I cannot get on the rolls even though I'm about 1/8 to maybe 3/32 cherokee.

Exactly the point....DNA is not sufficient....you have to prove your ancestory....

 

[Cloture]

Allow me to clarify my original comment. If a person comes along and thinks they can qualify for certain NA benefits (such as a scholarship) because one great-great grandmother was ostensibly Cherokee, that isn't good enough. Such was all I meant by that remark. There are many cases when race *is* more than checking a box on a form and assuming no one will ask.

Paternity tests are a booming business precisely because biological parenthood can be very lucrative. Domestic courts don't let people choose their own family.

And discrimination lawsuits actually require evidence of people being what they say they are. You can't say you were picked on for being Jewish when exactly no one thought you were Jewish.

The point of this is that there are many situations where race and/or biological parenthood are far from arbitrary.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

 

[Sophrosyne]

Exactly the point....DNA is not sufficient....you have to prove your ancestory....

It is not that DNA is sufficient but rather that they really don't have any way to use DNA to prove ancestry. I'm guessing there is no Indian "gene" to look at especially Cherokee gene and unless they go and dig up tons of graveyards and get DNA from all those people you could be well over the limit of dna but no way to prove it without an ancestor on the rolls.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Liberals change their beliefs as they go. They call it being "progressive". Today they might say that someone can't change their race, but tomorrow they might say that they can.

 

[[serious]]

Allow me to clarify my original comment. If a person comes along and thinks they can qualify for certain NA benefits (such as a scholarship) because one great-great grandmother was ostensibly Cherokee, that isn't good enough. Such was all I meant by that remark. There are many cases when race *is* more than checking a box on a form and assuming no one will ask.

Hold on, it seems like you are just saying that if you fulfil one requirement of a scholarship, but not the others, you don't get the scholarship. I'd agree as far as that goes. The one linked to has the following requirements:
Be a native american.
Be enrolled in a degree earning program.
Be recognized by a federally recognized tribe.

So yeah, not checking one of those boxes would preclude you from getting a scholarship. I don't see what relevance that has to anything though.

Paternity tests are a booming business precisely because biological parenthood can be very lucrative. Domestic courts don't let people choose their own family.

Adoption.

And discrimination lawsuits actually require evidence of people being what they say they are. You can't say you were picked on for being Jewish when exactly no one thought you were Jewish.

No, antidiscrimination does not require anything like that. If a Sikh denied employment because some racist thinks he's Muslim, it's still discrimination and still illegal even though he isn't actually muslim.

The point of this is that there are many situations where race and/or biological parenthood are far from arbitrary.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Biological parenthood, yes. Race, no.

 

[Gracchus]

The fact is that factors like race and gender are stereotypes by which we are perceived by others, a short hand way of categorizing. Our ability to change the way others perceive us is limited. Some people aren't white enough, some people aren't black enough ... Some people aren't US.
The reality is an almost continuous spectrum of traits, but humans like to simplify. Our race is chosen for us, and if we try to break the stereotype ... Well, look out for the crowd with ropes and torches.
As with "race", so it is with gender, but the mods are touchy about that.

 

[The Cadet]

The word missing here is context. You guys are talking about a whole bunch of different, if interrelated issues.

Race is a social construct. There is no clear dividing line between races, it's impossible to make any clear, distinct genetic differences out between various races. What matters is entirely context-dependent - are you black for the purposes of issues like affirmative action? Well, they typically test that via ancestry. Same with belonging to a Native American tribe - that is entirely dependent on your ancestry, because that's what they're testing for. Are you "black" to the world around you (and thus, are you likely to be the target of racism)? That depends almost entirely on your outward appearance and how people receive you. The backlash to Dollezal calling herself black should show clearly enough that that probably won't fly with her. This is the same reason it's not exactly a huge victory for diversity that Ted Cruz is making political headway as a hispanic: the man is whiter than mayo on wonderbread. That Dollezal self-identifies as black is perhaps relevant to her cultural leanings, but I'm not sure to what else.

Not that this has anything to do with Gender Dysphoria, which is a recognized mental disorder whose primary recommended treatment strategy often involves sexual reassignment, and for which being recognized as the gender one identifies with is a major step in treatment. And which, by the way, we are not allowed to talk about on this forum. Or did you mean something else by "be consistent"?

 

[Oafman]

No, I think you're missing the point. As is Oafman. Though connected, genetics and heritage are not the same thing. And, though arbitrary, that is the method used by those who control the purse strings.

That's what I reject. That such a flawed and arbitrary method should be used to control purse strings. And given that it is so arbitrary, the basis for asserting that someone else is wrong about their identity seems flimsy.

Since race is a social construct then why can't she identify as black?

As far as I'm concerned, she can. I don't care what she identifies as. And I don't really understand why you do. I won't treat her differently, whatever she calls herself - I don't seek to pigeon-hole people based on their ancestry. Yet it clearly bothers you how she identifies, for some reason.

Liberals change their beliefs as they go. They call it being "progressive". Today they might say that someone can't change their race, but tomorrow they might say that they can.

I've changed my opinions on things many times in my life, as i've learned more, and had new experiences. I won't apologise for that.

 

[AV1611VET]

.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Liberals change their beliefs as they go. They call it being "progressive". Today they might say that someone can't change their race, but tomorrow they might say that they can.

What exactly is wrong with that? It's only the intelligent thing to do as you learn more about the world through experiences, study, etc.

The word missing here is context. You guys are talking about a whole bunch of different, if interrelated issues.

Race is a social construct. There is no clear dividing line between races, it's impossible to make any clear, distinct genetic differences out between various races. What matters is entirely context-dependent - are you black for the purposes of issues like affirmative action? Well, they typically test that via ancestry. Same with belonging to a Native American tribe - that is entirely dependent on your ancestry, because that's what they're testing for. Are you "black" to the world around you (and thus, are you likely to be the target of racism)? That depends almost entirely on your outward appearance and how people receive you. The backlash to Dollezal calling herself black should show clearly enough that that probably won't fly with her. This is the same reason it's not exactly a huge victory for diversity that Ted Cruz is making political headway as a hispanic: the man is whiter than mayo on wonderbread. That Dollezal self-identifies as black is perhaps relevant to her cultural leanings, but I'm not sure to what else.

Not that this has anything to do with Gender Dysphoria, which is a recognized mental disorder whose primary recommended treatment strategy often involves sexual reassignment, and for which being recognized as the gender one identifies with is a major step in treatment. And which, by the way, we are not allowed to talk about on this forum. Or did you mean something else by "be consistent"?

Exactly.

 

[[serious]]

White chocolate

AV, If you're point is that white chocolate is an abomination and false chocolate, I agree. I would also say that manhattan clam chowder is likewise an affornt to all that is good and pure in this world.

Gastronomic preferences aside, i have no idea what you are trying to say. I feel like there may be some offensive racist element from the context, like a person while african ancestry with light skin being "white chocolate", but other than that, it seems like it bears not relevance to the thread at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

.

 

[Gracchus]

AV, If you're point is that white chocolate is an abomination and false chocolate, I agree. I would also say that manhattan clam chowder is likewise an affornt to all that is good and pure in this world.
Gastronomic preferences aside, i have no idea what you are trying to say. I feel like there may be some offensive racist element from the context, like a person while african ancestry with light skin being "white chocolate", but other than that, it seems like it bears not relevance to the thread at all.

Hey, it's AV1611VET, with over three million messages posted. It would be unreasonable to expect actual, relevant content.

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't know this lady, but it seems from reading Wikipedia, she is a white woman claiming she is black.

White on the outside, black on the inside?

Thus the point of my post:

She's white on the outside, but [wants to be] black on the inside.

Again, I don't know her though.

The other obvious terms that come to mind are Oreo, a black person who acts very white and banana, an Asian person who behaves very white.

My 2 cents is that race is arguably more complex and context sensitive in terms of how you define it rather than gender, which, while still a social construct, is also more inborn in a person's sense of self from a young age, even if they aren't aware of the terms. Race is something we are exposed to in a different sense, not to mention that we make it less important to children compared to gender and sex, since we don't like to be seen as making judgments of appropriateness of a particular race.

Someone being transracial, to me, seems more like they are, for instance, an Anglophile for Anglo Saxon culture. And identifying as African American could, analogously, mean that they hold a deep respect and admiration for African culture. And that's fine. The issue comes when you're trying to be something that, arguably isn't as essential to make physical adjustments for, compared to gender dysphoria and being transgender.

It's like the South Park episode with Kyle's dad having the dolphin surgery or Kyle himself having the African surgery, as it were. It's the focusing on what can be argued in context, to be more superficial, than what can be observed as a consistent aspect of humanity, presenting as your gender identity, rather than "presenting" as your ethnicity or racial identity, which seems more...nominal in nature. I don't present as white, I just am. I present and behave as a male, because I'm cisgendered.

 

[dzheremi]

A native american is defined as follows: "As a general rule, an American Indian or Alaska Native person is someone who has blood degree from and is recognized as such by a federally recognized tribe or village (as an enrolled tribal member) and/or the United States."
http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/

I think this is the most important part of the thread, and I'm surprised nobody has focused on it. It says right there "and is recognized as such by a federally recognized tribe or village." The interesting thing about the Rachael Dolezal case to me is not "oh, here's a white lady who pretended to be black" (wasn't there a whole movie about this back in the 1980s, Soul Man, where C. Thomas Howell's character is a white guy who pretends to be black in order to get a college scholarship?), but "oh, here's a white lady who pretended to be black, and was apparently successful enough at it for a time to rise to the position of being the head of the Spokane, Washington chapter of the NAACP before she was found out." It kinda goes to show how important that "and is recognized as such" clause is in answering this question: if you're recognized as such by the people you claim to be one of, then that's apparently enough. And of course they may withdraw that recognition at some point should evidence come to light that you have misrepresented who you are in order to try to fit in with them, as has happened in this case.

So that's why it doesn't work, OP: To somehow choose your race would mean somehow choosing whether or not people of that race would accept you as that race, and you can't do that. This does have a direct parallel to the transgender situation, though maybe not in the way you intended, insofar as whether or not a person is comfortable with transgender bathroom laws or whatever has to do with whether or not they are willing to accept the central thesis that because someone identifies as being of their gender, therefore they are of their gender. No doubt there are some who do and some who don't, and hence the laws can't really change the viewpoints of the people on the ground (which they never really do anyway; this is why racism isn't dead just because there are laws against racial discrimination...social discrimination or acceptance comes from the mind and the heart, not whatever law happens to be on the books).

But people do choose their race all the time. The whole concept of "passing" is about what people who don't 'look X' might do in social situations where people will judge you based on your skin color or other immediately visible features. For people who can 'pass' as being of some other ethnicity or race than they are, that can have certain social advantages or disadvantages, depending. So for those who can go either way, there may be a conscious or subconscious choice. Dolezal essentially tried to pass, was successful for a little while, and then was found out to be a fraud. If anything, it's a lesson in why you shouldn't lie about your background if you're going to try to represent a people you don't actually come from, not a reason to call to task those wacky liberals with their crazy ideas about race or gender or whatever. Things would still work this same way even if Dolezal or transgender bathroom access bills never existed. It's a matter of who accepts you and on what basis.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I don't know this lady, but it seems from reading Wikipedia, she is a white woman claiming she is black.

White on the outside, black on the inside?

Thus the point of my post:

She's white on the outside, but [wants to be] black on the inside.

Again, I don't know her though.

A contrasting comparison to "oreo"......OK....

 

[PsychoSarah]

Allow me to clarify my original comment. If a person comes along and thinks they can qualify for certain NA benefits (such as a scholarship) because one great-great grandmother was ostensibly Cherokee, that isn't good enough. Such was all I meant by that remark. There are many cases when race *is* more than checking a box on a form and assuming no one will ask.

Paternity tests are a booming business precisely because biological parenthood can be very lucrative. Domestic courts don't let people choose their own family.

And discrimination lawsuits actually require evidence of people being what they say they are. You can't say you were picked on for being Jewish when exactly no one thought you were Jewish.

The point of this is that there are many situations where race and/or biological parenthood are far from arbitrary.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

However, you can get antagonized or even abused for people thinking you are something that you are not. For example, I've been targeted by some that assume I am a Liberal, but my political views are a bit all over the place to the point that calling me a moderate wouldn't really be a good representation of what I am. For example, I am pro choice, but also not only am I pro death penalty, but I would support executions being on pay per view, or them being dealt by the families that suffered thanks to the criminal's actions. I support gay marriage, but hate any organization or benefit exclusive to certain groups based on race or gender.

But no, because I'm an atheist, that must mean I'm a freaking socialist -_-

What is more distressing is when people try to bring in race or gender when it was never a part of the overall issue.