Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: schrodingerscat ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 01:04AM

Jewish Professor at GWU admits she lied about being African.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/professor-jessica-krug-admits-she-lied-about-being-black-george-washington-university/

But if, according to genetic scientists, we are 99.9% genetically identical, doesn't that mean a Jew is 99.9% genetically identical to an African?
So that means she was only 1/10th of 1% off.
If it's perfectly acceptable for a man to identify as a woman, when he's still 100% genetically male, with XY chromosomes, why is it not ok to claim your African heritage, when 99.9% of your heritage is identical to an African?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tevai ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 01:20AM

Because the real life problems are not genetic, they are cultural.

Genetic problems don't lead to your being sold into slavery, or (to the same extent) to you being discriminated against in employment, how much you are paid, where you are allowed to live, who you are allowed to socialize with (or marry; or procreate with), or make you a target for "over zealous" policing (which can lead to your immediate murder), etc.

Cultural problems can lead to all of the above.

Genetic problems are, for the most part, "hidden" inside your body.

Cultural problems are, often, obvious at first glance.

If someone who is not actually "qualified" (in this context) as African (etc.), ID's as African, often it means that person is trying to take advantage of programs (etc.) which are meant to transform the cultural problems of race into cultural solutions (by creating a level playing field in the employment market, for example).

It is unfair to do this to those who genuinely qualify for those programs (etc.) because doing this inauthentically fills a potential, available, "empty" spot with someone who is NOT intended to benefit from that program (or whatever)--which means that the point of the program is being unfairly misused.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 01:27AM

Well put.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: schrodingerscat ( )
Date: October 04, 2020 02:08PM

I agree with everything you eloquently explained above, but it doesn't answer the question.
Why are we expected to respect a person's right to choose what sex they are, (when xy or xx chromosomes determine their sex) but not their right to choose how they identify racially?
Why do we call Obama our first black President when he was half white and half black? He choose to identify as black, despite being half white and raised by a white Mom/Grand parents.
So at what point does it become unethical to identify as black? When you pass for white?
So the one drop rule is still in effect?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Beth ( )
Date: October 06, 2020 08:22PM

Your post contains so much cis white dude trash, I don't know where to start, and I really don't want to. There's nothing more annoying to me than white folks yapping about what it means to be a person of color. I suggest less talking and more listening.

I couldn't let this pass, though.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why are we expected to respect a person's right to
> choose what sex they are, (when xy or xx
> chromosomes determine their sex) but not their
> right to choose how they identify racially?

Wrong.

Trans people do not choose their sex. The issue is GENDER. Learn the difference, then kindly go to hell.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2020 08:23PM by Beth.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: schrodingerscat ( )
Date: October 06, 2020 11:31PM

Beth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your post contains so much cis white dude trash, I
> don't know where to start, and I really don't want
> to. There's nothing more annoying to me than white
> folks yapping about what it means to be a person
> of color. I suggest less talking and more
> listening.
>
> I couldn't let this pass, though.
>
> schrodingerscat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why are we expected to respect a person's right
> to
> > choose what sex they are, (when xy or xx
> > chromosomes determine their sex) but not their
> > right to choose how they identify racially?
>
> Wrong.
>
> Trans people do not choose their sex.

Pretty sure Caitlin Jenner still has XY Chromosomes, even though she chooses to identify, at this point in her life, as female.

That's all I'm saying.

The issue is
> GENDER. Learn the difference, then kindly go to
> hell.

kindly Fuck off.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2020 11:31PM by schrodingerscat.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Beth ( )
Date: October 06, 2020 11:40PM

Good god, you're a moron.

Biological sex = xx, xy, and other variations

Gender is much, much broader and includes how a person identifies, or doesn't, based on a spectrum of societally-defined roles.

Read a book.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Timothy ( )
Date: October 07, 2020 04:54PM

... when he was half white and half black?


Because the police will identify him as black.

SHEESH!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2020 04:56PM by Timothy.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Elder Berry ( )
Date: October 07, 2020 05:27PM

The finer points of gender and sexual orientation (or lack thereof) are lost on our great RfM reductionist. But he doesn't like to reduce our "human breeds" to just one not hybrid of a species for I don't know why. Neanderthal used to be a bad word.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tevai ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 01:26AM

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jewish Professor at GWU admits she lied about
> being African.

She should not have done this.

> But if, according to genetic scientists, we are
> 99.9% genetically identical, doesn't that mean a
> Jew is 99.9% genetically identical to an African?

Yup!

I need to point out that MANY Jews ARE [very!] black! The countries their ancestors came from are all throughout the African continent (Ethiopia, Uganda, etc.), and the parts of the New World where slavery once existed (Jamaica, etc.).

In addition: there are many black Jews who have converted to Judaism, or who come from families who have converted to Judaism (and this all began, literally, in biblical times).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUHP6ot-JPg
(The running time of this video is one minute, forty seconds.)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2020 01:30AM by Tevai.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Brother Of Jerry ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 02:38AM

Why automatically discount the motives of someone who identifies as a different race, but defend the motives of someone who identifies as a different gender?

I remember the case of Rachel Dolezal. She had been raised with two adopted black siblings. She attended a historically black college. She married a black person. She got a job teaching black studies.

It seems to me entirely possible that she did indeed identify as black. No, she wasn't born black, but Caitlin Jenner wasn't born female either, and ironically, her magazine cover was the exact same week as the Dolezal news story.

So how come Jenner gets treated with an assumption of legitimacy, and Dolezal is assumed to be an opportunist? Because we assume no white person would ever identify as black?

I smell a double standard.

ETA: meant to place on main thread, but had senior finger malfunction. :-/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2020 02:55AM by Brother Of Jerry.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tevai ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 03:07AM

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I remember the case of Rachel Dolezal. She had
> been raised with two adopted black siblings. She
> attended a historically black college. She married
> a black person. She got a job teaching black
> studies.
>
> It seems to me entirely possible that she did
> indeed identify as black. No, she wasn't born
> black, but Caitlin Jenner wasn't born female
> either, and ironically, her magazine cover was the
> exact same week as the Dolezal news story.

In the few years since the Rachel Dolezal story was a news story, my sense is that we Americans--as a nation--have evolved quite considerably on this particular issue.

In my observation, some of this is due to interracial adoption (which is now fairly common throughout the USA), interracial marriages, and also YouTube, which has done tremendously effective work in explaining these kinds of situations and feelings to people who have no first-hand experience with them.

We have evolved in the last few years.

Racial/ethnic sensibilities now are not the same sensibilities most people had five or ten or more years ago, often because of personal experience of some kind or another (with neighbors, relatives, etc.).

From what I gathered from the news at that time, I thought Rachel Dolezal was treated unfairly back then.

I think most people would be far more sympathetic now.

BUT: There still are people whose INTENTION is to selfishly "take advantage" of a program or situation--not because of their inner feelings, but simply because they think it is available for exploitation. These are the people I was referring to in my post.

[I feel strongly about this because I grew up "knowing" I was Jewish--except I was NOT Jewish. When I was growing up, there were still many people around the USA who had some kind of first-hand "experience" of the Holocaust: their parents or grandparents had been killed, etc. I went to school with twin brothers whose family had been forced to leave their sister behind (to her virtually certain death) when she "disappeared" JUST as they were literally walking out of the door, as they escaped in Poland....and despite all of their truly frantic efforts, she appeared to have "just vanished." I knew better than to tell either of them that I FELT Jewish--even though I KNEW, inside, that I really was.

Today, most Jews are far different in their inner feelings. If someone says to most Jews today: "I feel I am, inside, a Jew," they will likely receive encouragement to explore their feelings and, if those feelings continue, usually a bit of practical information ("You should probably talk to a rabbi. Here is the phone number of our shul's rabbi, or you could just stop by and talk to him/her.") It is just night-and-day different today than it was when I was growing up.]

I think the Rachel Dolezal story is probably very similar.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2020 09:58AM by Tevai.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: thingsithink ( )
Date: October 06, 2020 11:35PM

I knew a five foot tall Irish kid - Kenneth Batch-Elder - who was abandoned at an Native American reservation where he grew up. He considered himself a Native American and wrote about the history of his people. Interesting dude.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Beth ( )
Date: October 07, 2020 12:24AM

I haven't read all of the comments. I tried and felt kind of ugh.

Someone may have mentioned this book. If so, I apologize.

"The Color of Water" is about a Jewish woman who married a Black man. Her family sat Shiva for her.

I don't remember if he died, she left him, or he left her, but she ends up raising their children. She told them that she was Black. Interesting read. Not a whole lot of people wish they were Black in America. A bunch of us, at some point in our lives, have wished we were white.

ETA: My father went to school with one of the children in the book.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2020 12:25AM by Beth.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Dave the Atheist ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 07:13AM

ALL humans came from Africa and therefore should identify as African.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: azsteve ( )
Date: October 05, 2020 10:51PM

If Elizabeth Warren can get away with being a native American, then anyone can be any race they identify as. The standard needs to be applied evenly.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 05, 2020 10:54PM

No one thinks what she did was appropriate.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tevai ( )
Date: October 05, 2020 11:16PM

azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Elizabeth Warren can get away with being a
> native American, then anyone can be any race they
> identify as. The standard needs to be applied
> evenly.

As I see it, the problem with this stance is "the one drop rule"--the historical, to nearly contemporary, understanding in American law and culture that anyone with "one drop" of black blood is, by law, considered to be "all" "Negro" [or whatever]. Granted that this "rule" was always applied unequally across the American spectrum (which is why people with known black/Native American ancestors could "pass for white"), it nevertheless DID exist until well into the twentieth century.

I come from maternal "Okie" roots (my maternal family moved west because of the Depression), and I was taught (as had been also true for my Mom, my aunt, etc.), as I was growing up, to always--when I was getting to know new people--look for a pale purplish tint under the fingernails of any potential new friend, because this was supposed to be proof positive that a given person was not actually white, but was black because of the "one drop" rule.

If the "one drop rule" was in effect for three centuries when it came to "black"/mixed race people, it certainly ought to apply to later generations who actually did, or do, have Native American ancestors--and this would include Elizabeth Warren who (like my maternal ancestors), also came from Oklahoma.

Although they are undoubtedly no longer alive (they were of the same generation as my maternal grandmother), when I was growing up, I had relatives I met in person who were VISIBLY "Native American," without any question at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2020 01:13AM by Tevai.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: azsteve ( )
Date: October 06, 2020 08:36AM

I think that the one drop rule is racist. That is not to disparage anyone here who was taught the one drop rule while growing up. Many of us here were taught bad things when we were children. The one-drop rule is a bad teaching.

The Elizabeth Warren situation is a good example of why this one-drop rule shouldn't exist. If her DNA test were to have proven some black heritage instead of Native American heritage, then any special benefits she received for being black would be unevenly applied. Essentially, she would get all of the benefits of being a white person (as observed by others in-general), while getting any special benefits that her minority race would entitle her to also. So should there be a scale where anyone of mixed-race gets racial benefits based on the results as a percentage of their minority status based on their DNA test? I think not.

When I used Elizabeth Warren as the example, it wasn't to support anyone who identifies as a specific race as having a right to claim any real life benefits, regardless of their actual race. But in my mind, the need to apply standards equally is more important than the issue of 'benefits or no benefits based on race' issue. What Elizabeth Warren did was wrong. But how should this same issue be applied in the workplace (for example)? How should I respond if a job candidate who appears to be a white person, identifies as black in their job interview. I certainly wouldn't ask any race-related questions. Sometimes people give you information that you didn't ask for. Should such a person qualify under affirmative action rules? I would let someone in the Human Resources department make that call. But who do they ask? If I worked in Human Resources (which I don't), I would probably ask someone in the legal department. But who do they ask? I don't know if society in-general has answers to some of these questions. These kinds of answers are important because they allow us to vet the issues over time as a society if policies and laws are enforced. I personally think that affirmative action offers more good than not, at least for now. But whether or not I personally agree with something, at work I go by company policies and the law (no room for me to disagree unless I am prepared to resign). But the law itself doesn't appear to be as clear in this area. So as a result, some of these issues and questions will remain unanswered. Elizabeth Warren appears to have paid no real penalties for representing herself as a native american on official paperwork that gave her the benefits of a native american when there are only small trace amounts of native american DNA in her. That is one datapoint that says 'the issue isn't important because you can just lie or have a mistaken belief and face no penalties, if caught being in-error on the issue'.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2020 09:37AM by azsteve.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 08:52AM

You may remember the documentary about James Dresnok, one of a handful of US soldiers who deserted and defected to North Korea:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Joseph_Dresnok

He married a woman from the Eastern Bloc and his sons, while "racially" white European, are North Koreans and served in the DPRK military.

African American is a ethnicity. African Americans are Americans, not Africans. "Africa" is continent, not a country or an ethnicity. Ask someone from Africa.

As for the ethnic self identification part, this is as old as the hills and people have been doing it for millennia for many reasons. In Rachel Dolezal's case, there is a lot more going on. What was she trying to escape from? Same goes for the GWU professor. Adah Issacs Menken was one of the most famous actresses of the 19th century and she was a mixed race woman from New Orleans who reinvented herself as Jewish and moved to Europe:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adah_Isaacs_Menken.

Khigh Dhiegh, one of my favourite actors, was actually Kenneth Dickerson from New Jersey and didn't have an Asian bone in his body. He was of Sudanese ancestry and looked Asian (lots of genetic diveristy in Africa, more than anywhere else on Earth), so that's what people assumed that he was.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khigh_Dhiegh

There are lots of Americans who always thought they were of Greek or Italian ancestry who find out through DNA testing that they are actually of Jewish, North African, or Indian origin. There was even a case of a Federal official back in the late 1800s (head of US Geological Survey I think) from a prominent New York family who was in love with a black woman who lived in Chicago. He pretended to be a Pullman porter who worked on the railroad and couldn't be home all the time even though he was white. This he could do because of the ridiculous one drop social convention and that no one wanted to be tarred with the brush of African ancestry.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2020 10:26AM by anybody.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: JoeSmith666 ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 10:21AM

Charlize Theron - my favorite African American.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Elder Berry ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 10:35AM

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> when 99.9% of your heritage
> is identical to an African?

Words matter. Heritage isn't genetics. There you go mixing for your own reductions. It is absurd.


her·it·age
/ˈherədij/
See definitions in:
all

horticulture

religion
noun
noun: heritage; plural noun: heritages
1.
property that is or may be inherited; an inheritance.
h
Similar:
inheritance


birthright


patrimony


legacy


bequest


endowment


estate


bequeathal

devise


hereditament

valued objects and qualities such as cultural traditions, unspoiled countryside, and historic buildings that have been passed down from previous generations.
"a sense of history and heritage"
h
Similar:
tradition


history


background


culture


customs


past

denoting a traditional brand or product regarded as emblematic of fine craftsmanship.
"heritage brands have found a growing cachet among younger customers"
North American
(of a plant variety) not hybridized with another; old-fashioned.
"heritage roses"
2.
archaic
a special or individual possession; an allotted portion.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Richard the Bad ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 12:50PM

"there´s always Korla Plankton
him´n me can play the blues
an´then i´ll watch him buff that
tiny ruby that he use
he´ll straighten up his turban
an´eject a little ooze
along a one-celled Hammond organism
underneath my shoes."

Korla Pandit was an interesting dude. Made quite a life for himself by pretending he was something that he was not.


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

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 03:30PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Facts not Feelings ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 12:51PM

It is sad that so many white people use black identity as a crutch for their own insecurities.

* Satchuel Cole, "black activist" - - "My deception and lies have hurt those I care most about. I have taken up space as a Black person while knowing I am white,”
https://thegrio.com/2020/09/19/satchuel-cole-blackfishing/

* Shaun King, aka Talcum X, part of the physical wing of BLM. Claimed to be victim of white supremacism when it was proven both his parents were white.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaun_King

* Rachel Dolezal - see above.
* Martina Big - blonde German claims tanning injections made her black and likes African food. Seriously. Her husband is also transracial.
https://youtu.be/CUqgJRWTgC0

* CV Vitilo-Haddad, academic at University of Wisconsin-Madison graduate student CV Vitolo-Haddad apologized and announced her resignation from her teaching position on Sept. 8, admitting that she is actually of Italian heritage, despite repeatedly claiming to be black and writing papers on the evils of being white.
https://nypost.com/2020/09/16/white-uw-madison-student-apologizes-for-lying-about-being-black/

* Ja Du, born a white man, claims to be a Filipina woman, and drives a tuk tuk. Can't speak a word of Tagalog and has never lived in the Philippines. Filipinos aren't happy.
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5a0b04b2e4b00a6eece45800

* Margaret Seltzer, white, pretended to be native American but raised by African Americans.

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

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Facts not Feelings ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 01:08PM

Identity theft/appropriation is on the rise. Thirty years ago there was a film called Soul Man which predicted this trend.

When black people "passed" as white, they did it for social and economic expediency and to avoid prejudice. When white people try to pass as black, they do it as a psychological crutch.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 02:02PM

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/511599/pdf


Early in his memoir, Really the Blues (1946), Jewish jazz clarinetist Milton "Mezz" Mezzrow describes a conversion experience. Mezzrow and his friends approach a segregated lunch counter in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. As someone who is, in his words, "dirty from riding the rails and dark-complexioned to begin with," he is told, "We don't serve n*****s in here." Clearly a mistake has been made, perhaps because of their dirty faces. However, the more he thinks about it, Mezzrow believes it was not a mistake: "We were Jews, but in Cape Girardeau they had told us we were Negroes. Now all of a sudden, I realized that I agreed with them." He vows to become a "Negro musician."3

Mezzrow's conversion from Jew to black is well known, but his is only the most extreme example of Jewish jazz musicians who identify with African Americans because of a felt sense of affinity.4 These musicians, [End Page 259] to use Jewish saxophonist Stan Getz's words, "played black," not only by becoming part of a musical genre whose most influential figures have been African Americans, but also by adopting black speech inflections.5 Although it is tempting to dismiss these Jewish artists as "white Negroes," to cite Norman Mailer's well-known phrase, their apparent adoption of black identity was made more complicated and interesting by its connection to their Jewishness. Even if they initially "became black," these musicians often came to blackness through Jewishness and ultimately struggled with a never-fully-buried Jewish identity. Thus, when Jewish jazz musicians tried "to play black," it sometimes "[came] out sounding Jewish."6 In the 1940s and 1950s, the ongoing negotiations of racial identity by Mezzrow, disc jockey "Symphony Sid" Torin, jazz trumpeter Red Rodney, and others emerged from both the history of Jewish racial ambiguity in America and the specific mixture of antisemitism and pressure to assimilate that they faced.7

"The African Character of the Jew"
The notion of affinity between Jews and blacks has roots in historical perceptions of Jews as less than fully white. For antisemites, Jews were an inferior, "colored" race. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Jews were seen as having dark skin, which was considered a sign of inferiority [End Page 260] and disease. Reflecting a consensus among anthropologists and others, Robert Knox, in the mid-nineteenth century, spoke of "the African character of the Jew, his muzzle-shaped mouth and face removing him from other races." According to Knox, "the whole physiognomy, when swarthy, as it often is, has an African look."8 Well into the twentieth century, Jews were seen as a separate race, not as white.9

From this perspective, Jews were foreigners to the European-American musical tradition. The idea that the foreignness of Jews to Western culture was a threat to music had its most notorious exposition in Richard Wagner's 1869 essay, "Jewishness in Music."10 There, he argued that "European art and civilization . . . have remained to the Jew a foreign tongue," in which he or she can never create great art. Such attitudes were not confined to nineteenth-century Europe, however.

In the 1920s in America, Jews were seen as "Orientals" who would contaminate American music. Author and composer Daniel Gregory Mason decried the influence of the "foreign type" Jews on modern music: "The Jew and the Yankee stand in human temperament, at polar points; where one thrives, the other is bound to languish. And our whole contemporary aesthetic attitude toward instrumental music, especially in New York, is dominated by Jewish tastes and standards, with their Oriental extravagance, their sensuous brilliancy and intellectual facility and superficiality, their general tendency to exaggeration and disproportion."11

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tevai ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 03:44PM

In United States history, and up until contemporary times, a "Jew" was popularly considered to be of European stock only.

The truth was (and IS) that Jews descend from most of the racial roots on the planet: African (of many distinctly varied African kinds), Asian (particularly Jews from Chinese and Indian subcontinent ancestry), Middle Eastern "Muslim," etc.

Today this is more true than it previously historically has ever been. Although I personally have never heard of a Native American Jew, I would not be surprised to learn that Native American Jews exist (albeit in what are likely very small numbers ;) ). The same would be true of [theoretical] Australian (etc.) Aboriginal Jews.

Previously historically "lost" Jews are continuing, to this very moment, to be found. https://kulanu.org/

Racially, Jews worldwide are enormously diverse--and in ways that would have been startling (to the point of being literally "unbelievable") to the anti-Semites of the late 1700s on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUHP6ot-JPg



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2020 03:46PM by Tevai.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 03:51PM

A lot of people don't realise that the "white" racial classification was expanded after WW2. This was for social and political reasons. A lot of southern european, north indian, north african, southwest asian turks and arabs, etc were not originally considered "white," but by the 1950's they were.

This had the effect of making the racial makeup of the USA over 90% "white" when in fact it was not by the original northern european, non-irish definition of "white."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tevai ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 03:57PM

Excellent point, anybody!

Although I actually lived through much of this process, I had not considered it.

Thank you.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 04:29PM

Under the law back then, you had to be "white" or claim african ancestry to qualify for US citizenship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind

United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that Bhagat Singh Thind, an Indian Sikh man who identified himself as an Aryan, was ineligible for naturalized citizenship in the United States.[1] In 1919, Thind filed a petition for naturalization under the Naturalization Act of 1906 which allowed only "free white persons" and "aliens of African nativity and persons of African descent" to become United States citizens by naturalization.

After his petition was granted, Government attorneys initiated a proceeding to cancel Thind's naturalization and a trial followed in which the Government presented evidence of Thind's political activities as a founding member of the Ghadar Party, an Indian independence movement headquartered in San Francisco.[2] Thind did not challenge the constitutionality of the racial restrictions. Instead, he attempted to be classified as a "free white person" within the meaning of the Naturalization Act based on the fact that Indians and Europeans share common descent from Proto-Indo-Europeans.

Thind was represented by a fellow Indian American, Sakharam Ganesh Pandit, a California attorney. The court unanimously rejected Thind's argument, holding that while Indians shared common ancestry with Europeans, they did not meet a "common sense" definition of white.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2020 04:31PM by anybody.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tevai ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 04:35PM

I never knew any of this.

Thank you for posting this, anybody.

It seems my American history education was lacking some important elements. ;)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 05:35PM

"Common sense:" the ultimate argument of the irrational.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: thedesertrat1 ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 04:34PM

I would submit to you that all of we who are human are of the HUMAN RACE. There are several sub catagories or sub-definers to that condition
Caucasian
Negroid
Oriental
ETC.
These are modifications of the basic genes.
Therefore I submit to you that a human being's placement in this world should be on what they are able to accomplish and not on their skin color nor their bodily structure.
SO THERE!!!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2020 04:35PM by thedesertrat1.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: October 02, 2020 04:48PM

All those sub-categories are arbitrary and bogus and have no meaning in science or biology.

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

As regards "fatherland of the first humans," critics argue that Blumenbach claimed that Adam and Eve were Caucasian inhabitants of Asia,[42], insinuating that Blumenbach attempted to link "Caucasians" to Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden. This, however, is most ignorant, since others have already presented detailed summaries of the matter, such as the following:

"When Blumenbach speaks of the unity of the human species, he sometimes cites the biblical Adam as an alternative to the original "root race" (Stammrasse) of his earlier texts. According to the second creation account (Genesis 2,4b-2,25), which differs significantly from the first account (Genesis 1,1-2,4a), the place of creation is not localized. After paradise has been planted, Adam is placed as a gardener in this pleasure garden. A little later the creation of Eve as his assistant takes place. The location of Paradise is unspecified except for being in the east. Since two of the four rivers of paradise are given as the names of well-known rivers, the said garden was sought for around the headwaters of the Euphrates and Tigris, but with its allusions to the Assyrian sacred garden and the ahistorical focus in archetypal structures, the biblical story is not considered to be a historically reliable source. Blumenbach knew the biblical texts on Adam and Eve as well as on Noah, but he did not approve them of having the persuasiveness that he needed as a scientist. This is also evident from a later note on the Armenians; "First come the physiological reasons, then the historical, and later the biblical ones may also be mentioned" (Equidem e Caucasis varietate, utpote quam pro primigenia habere cum physiologica tum historica argumenta suadent).[43] Relatively late, around 1823, Blumenbach took up Ovid,[44] where it is said that Prometheus, a son of Iapetos, created the people of the Caucasus,[45] where Blumenbach notes: "Prometheus creates man in the Caucasus - Ovid. Metamorphoses 1." But one cannot fail to recognize that in Blumenbach's argument the mythological, biblical, historical and even the physiological reasons are preceded by the aesthetic ones."[46]

In other words, in relation to Blumenbach, the term “Caucasian” actually refers to the outdated[47] grouping of human beings in sense of a biological taxon. In the United States, on the other hand, the homonymous term “Caucasian” is also used to refer to a white person of mainly European origin.[48][49] Given the inconsistency and errors in Bendyshe’s 1865 translations, and further misinterpretations resulting from them, the English text corpus should not be accepted as an accurate reflection of Blumenbach’s views.[50] Moreover, there need be careful consideration of the two homonyms "Caucasian" as well as their varied usage, specifically in the current cultural sphere of the U.S., which is part of the "Western Tradition," as Eugen Weber called it, but is not solely representative of it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Heartless ( )
Date: October 03, 2020 08:05AM

I remember watching a show where a white couple wanted to adopt a child from Africa.

They ended up getting a Caucasian child from South Africa. Interesting to assume all people from Africa are black.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: schrodingerscat ( )
Date: October 03, 2020 06:33PM

Exactly. What if somebody comes from a long line of white South Africans and moved to America like Elon Musk. Is it wrong for him to mark the the African American box on the college application?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tevai ( )
Date: October 03, 2020 08:13PM

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exactly. What if somebody comes from a long line
> of white South Africans and moved to America like
> Elon Musk. Is it wrong for him to mark the the
> African American box on the college application?

The problem is that the word "African" can (in common usage in both the USA and in South Africa) mean two entirely different things, depending on which country is assumed to be the one being implicitly referred to.

In the United States, "African American" is commonly understood to mean "racially black" (with, usually, some biological component of ancestral relatives who were both black AND from Africa).

In other words: IN THE USA, "black" and "African" are often understood to be synonymous.

In Africa, however--and in South Africa in particular--there is no such automatic connection, since everyone knows many people who are emphatically "African" (going back five centuries or more) and are definitely NOT black (most commonly, in South Africa, they are either of historical Dutch ancestry or from British or French forebears).

You are conflating American understanding and usage with actual African understanding and usage--but in these kinds of situations, the conflation between race and citizenship/ancestry cannot [accurately] be done.

The answer to the dilemma is:

If you are in South Africa, you go by normative South African understanding of the term "African."

If you are in the USA, you go by normative American understanding of the term "African."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/03/2020 08:15PM by Tevai.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: schrodingerscat ( )
Date: October 03, 2020 08:40PM

So is it wrong for Elon Musk to identify himself as African American on US Census or college application?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tevai ( )
Date: October 03, 2020 08:52PM

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So is it wrong for Elon Musk to identify himself
> as African American on US Census or college
> application?

Without explanation, and in an American context, it is certainly misleading.

Whether it is wrong or not is probably a moral/ethical question.

Were it me, and if I were South African, I would explain (since I would know that Americans who understand South African racial and historical realities would be in the low single digits of percentage).

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: October 03, 2020 08:57PM

Imma gonna report YOU to the moderators for refusing to honor a great man's contribution to grieving almost-former and completely former mormons of any and all colors.

How dare you not support him in this hour of exmo need! His message is timeless and his toes are on point!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 03, 2020 08:55PM

For what it's worth, Musk never identifies himself as African: only South African.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tevai ( )
Date: October 03, 2020 08:58PM

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For what it's worth, Musk never identifies himself
> as African: only South African.

So he has created wiggle room for himself:

If the American person reading his self-description assumes he is black, then "it's certainly not HIS fault" that person misinterpreted his [accurate by South African standards] self-description.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/03/2020 08:59PM by Tevai.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: La Belle Angèle ( )
Date: October 04, 2020 03:57AM

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For what it's worth, Musk never identifies himself
> as African: only South African.

Musk identifies with the government that will give him the most money.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 05, 2020 11:48PM

Musk gets no money from the South African government.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: schrodingerscat ( )
Date: October 06, 2020 12:36AM

He gets billions from US Government for taking over NASAs job in supplying ISS and launching satellites.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Human ( )
Date: October 06, 2020 09:47AM

Yes. And far more.

Did the US government ‘regime change’ Bolivia, taking down the popular and indigenous Morales and replacing him with an evangelical racist with 2% popularity, giving Epstein’s friend Elon access to the world’s largest lithium deposits?

Yes, yes they did.

But the few still hooked-up to the MSM, CNN/MSNBC/FOX/BBC/CBC/NYT/WP/AP/etc, of course have a different idea about what really happened, a completely false idea, as false as their ideas are about Iran and Venezuela and Yemen and Syria and too many more to count. And of course they will excuse Elon Musk’s now deleted tweet as him just joking around like a regular guy:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Musk-Bolivia-Tweet-1.png

“We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it.”

Just as “Democracy Dies In Darkness” is an UNIRONIC motto for the WP, the above quote from Elon serves well as a motto for the USA. And the world, especially the indigenous people of the world, continues to have to “deal with it.”


In the above the OP question is answered, but I trust the answer will be missed by more than just the original poster.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 06, 2020 02:28PM

My heavens, you just cited tweets by Elon Musk and @historyofarmani as if they were credible sources on US foreign policy.

I'm glad you aren't wasting your time with mainstream media!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2020 04:26PM by Lot's Wife.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 06, 2020 04:32PM

Again, there is no evidence in that article. The fact that Elon Musk says something does not make it true.

Do you have any evidence from any credible source explaining this supposed coup implemented by the US at the behest of Musk? Because so far all you have is reckless claims by a man famous for his reckless claims.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Done & Done ( )
Date: October 06, 2020 09:54AM

The labeling game.

We like out labels, don't we?

Armani on your suit or Ferrari on your hood and you feel special. Channel sunglasses and a woman suddenly walks with a different aire. Ironic this because a lot of labels usually signal debt and a maxed out credit card.

I have happened in my life to know a lot of uber rich with no labels to be seen. You wouldn't know them from anybody else at a glance and they may even be in the Subaru next to you on the freeway. The difference is they earned their money through hard work. They appreciate it was the hard work that makes them satisfied and not the labels. Their spoiled children on the other hand are covered in Yves St.Laurent and Rolls Royces.

Yes. We are all the same proved by the fact that you can produce children with anyone at all. So? Makes your question a little empty. This really matters to you?

What is the question behind the question? You tired of the them against us thing? Me too. Been that way since the beginning of time. The teams change but the game is the same.


So what I liked was before the BLM there was this thing at least here in SoCal where you could hardly find an advertisement that didn't feature a black and white couple. Some had biracial children. I thought finally we are getting somewhere. The young will see this as normal. Yay. Because, I have always known that equality comes more through commerce than force. Force only causes a surge that settles back to level.

Now is the Black moment, Many other ethnicities are still in the wings waiting to sing their aria. This isn't the first or the last Ethnic Opera. Only Lisa Lampanelli got it. I watched a packed audience of every ethnicity and she made searing jokes about every single one and I have never heard such laughter. That is the trick. In that moment, she unified. Of course the kids to day would skin her alive. Dividing, once again.



My label? Human. I do have a lot of accessories to tack onto that to give myself a reason to walk with an aire, but human is all I need.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed. Please start another thread and continue the conversation.