Uhhh…Black…ish?
Former Ugandan dictator Idi Amin?
Rachel Dolezal “self identifying” as “black” is the worst example of someone co-opting another race since the Wu-Tang Clan.
There is almost no one in the US who is “black” who isn’t also part white. There are many people who have two “black” parents, but who genetically test as having more European ancestry than African.
This is not as simple as you think it is.
(Bolding mine)…which is a pretty good argument against giving credence to such rules. And a good reason to favor the idea that people can define their own identity.
Sure, but doesn’t that person have the right to disagree with your assessment of him?
People like Rachel are not going to stop racism.
She probably did just as much harm as good. I’m glad this happened. It was hilarious, and she’s crazy as hell, so I’m happy to see her go back to the other team. 
I wish the Chapelle Show was still on.
I suspect the opening skit on the next new SNL will be quite hilarious.
I’m going to vote a qualified yes, you can self-identify. I’ve spent time with individuals who were either adopted or fostered by parents of another race and clearly think of themselves as having more in common with the people who raised them than with their biological parents. If you closed your eyes and just listened to them speak, you couldn’t tell they weren’t ethnically identical to their adoptive or foster parents.
As we see more and more mixed-race marriages and procreation, what race a person is technically becomes less and less important. So yes, I think that as long as a person is expected to make a choice, they should be able to choose to identify with the race that makes them feel the most comfortable.
I consider race a social construct. On a bio level, what we’ve got is a situation where some of our distant ancestors relocated north and over time evolution (including both random divergence and natural selection for traits that were good adaptations for the climate) yielded some physical differences, but there was no dividing line in time where and then they were white people occurred, and fast-forwarding to the present, there’s no distinct biological basis for inserting a dividing line now, either. In comparison, the historical narrative explains how the groups came to perceive each other as distinctly different, and it’s inextricable from racism and colonialism and slavery and so forth, those institutions shaped the perception of race.
Like all things social, there is no “truth” hovering out there waiting for either an individual or an aggregate that we can refer to as “everyone else” to properly notice and discover it. Instead, there is her truth and there is his truth and there is their truth and there is communicaton and miscommunication.
Is race something subject to self-identification according to whom? Dolezal considers that it is. If no one goes along with that, that doesn’t make her wrong, but her ability to participate as she’d apparently like to participate in our society as a black person is going to be sharply limited. On the other hand, the surrounding society isn’t a monolith that gets to make one ruling, thumbs up or down and then that’s the truth of the matter and that’s it; Dolezal can be considered to be negotiating the matter, and I’m sure it will arise again and again. (Not inclined to think she’s the ideal poster child, but whatever).
I’m inclined to think the world will be a better place if race does become viewed as something one self-attributes. Either it has no meaning (in which case why bother) or it does NOT have no meaning, in which case, to contradict Omega Glory,
[QUOTE=Omega Glory]
the idea of “feeling” a certain race is nonsensical to me
[/quote]
I don’t think it nonsensical and can imagine that people do “feel” a certain race. That that meaning is cultural and social and formed largely of concepts and snippets of screen footage and images and whatnot, doesn’t make it nonreal (as such things constitute nearly all of our various identities and roles and presentations).
Minor picking of nits, but she was president of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP. Completely different demographic breakdown, as I understand it.
Ugh. I don’t even know anymore.
All I was saying, is that you don’t just get to randomly pick your genetic makeup. (Which appears to be what RD has done, and what I was arguing against.) You are what you are. I doubt many people in the US are 100% anything. If you’re 32% Asian, 17% Black, 38% White, and 13% Native American, then that’s pretty much it.
Then, of course, if you really break it down there are dozens of variations of White/Black/Whatever so who the hell knows who is what. I guess when you’re a hearty mix you just use your best judgement or ask a neighbor or something. I wouldn’t even know where to begin.
BUUUUT…if you’re a pasty white chick, and in a desperate bid for attention, you launch a campaign of deception to assert that you’re black, you can pretty much screw right off. I’m firm on that.
:smack:
Thank you for the correction, FG.
To be clear, I do agree that cultures really affect people; I’m just not comfortable making the second leap that you are.
The proper expression these days is: I can’t even… 
It’s not really a big deal, I just wanted to clear up the idea that “it’s simple”. Yeah, for most white people it’s simple. But for many, many minorities it is anything but simple.
Everyone has the right to disagree. It’s how you act on that, which is relevant.
Unless it’s for a Native American tribe- yes. It’s entirely self-IDed.
Native American tribes have the only legal definition.
How would we do it otherwise without being racist? The “one drop rule”? :rolleyes:
And the definition gets changed. I am the 7th of 8 kids and I almost missed out on being in my tribe because 4 years before I was born they changed the blood quantum. I and a younger sister were grandfathered in. I’ve read it happening more recently where people who were tribes members are suddenly not because their tribe decided to pare down the roll so that there is more money for those who made the new limit.
Rachel Dolezal’s story made me remember the “clown lady” I used to see back in the 70s and 80s in the Quad Cities. She was a black woman who wore whiteface. She also wore white gloves so her hands would look white. I always felt a bit sorry for her since she did not seem to love who she was.
That’s true, and i dont defend either. But still, those are the only legal definitions of what a race/ethnicity is in the USA. And since a tribe is often rather small, having the vote on who is or is not a member is a reasonable way of doing it.
Note that some tribes recognize adoptions. You could be 100% non-Native American by blood, but if the tribe decides you are a member- you *are *Native American- legally.
The only other ways of doing it are explicitly racist.
It’s certainly possible to be adopted or inducted into an Aboriginal community – and to drop out of one. I don’t think most of the methods you list would count – it’s normally more about relationships and less about stuff. I think it used to be more common than it is now. And doing so would certainly not qualify you for positive discrimination if anbody asked, because you’re explicitly asking about joining a community that you don’t belong to by descent… but your children or your grandchildren might qualify as “real” because they descended from you, if you all stuck with the community. This is the kind of thing political arguments are made of: that man is white, he is politicaly important, is he a “real” aboriginal? Were his parents “real” aboriginals?
Marrying into community certainly did used to be an important part of joining rural community. In many traditional communities, only certain people could marry certain people (cousins? sister of dead wife? step-mother?), so marrying automatically implied certain relationships inside the community (“you’re on the red team now”) that would be difficult for an adult to establish by other means.
I’m of the idea that if a person can choose their gender, they can also “choose their race”. Defining and attributing “race”, in its various contexts, can quickly spiral into a discussion of semantics.
Generally speaking, in America, it’s all too often a matter of “you are what you look like”. So in essence, if you look the part convincingly enough, you can claim to be a particular race if you wish it (or spend the time correcting people, if you reject it). I’ve had Hispanic friends who could pass as East Asian, and Black ones who could pass as White. Mixed children deal with this all the time, and as these friends of mine now have children, they’re going to increasingly explore this.
However, background and culture also tie into the racial discussion, and you don’t need a particular skin color to identify with either. A person can identify as “____”, without fitting the specific phenotype of that group. West Indian people represent a variety of different racial (by phenotype) backgrounds, for example.
In tandem with the above, there are the relationships people form. I had a friend who was (is) white, but her particular body type didn’t attract many white men-- it attracted Black/Hispanic men. In enough circumstances, people generally tend to date from a pool of people who are attracted to them, and so she dated those groups. To no surprise, she identified largely with both of these cultures and “races”, as much (or more) than her own (and learned and spoke Spanish). That was where the majority of her social interactions took place, and that was where she felt comfortable and accepted. She was white in skin color, only, but you couldn’t tell her story by looking at her.
Now quite obviously, you can’t just up and change the biological end of it, or flip a coin and decide to try on a given race for a day-- there are certain experiences which come along with it, usually built over time. But as race is in many ways a social construct, I think there is room to play with the term, and shape it to align with an identity.