# Is Shaun King (Daily Kos writer & Black Lives Matter activist) really white? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 19, 2015, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271 "2015-08-19T16:39:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 29
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271/561 "2015-08-24T02:46:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That one. That’s not the definition, that’s the methodology that is accepted for using the definition. The definition is, oddly enough, found in the US Census info under “definition of race”: > > See the box at the top, left of page 3 in [this US Census publication](http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf) (warning: PDF). > > The methodology is “self-report”, the definitions are given in the document. [About the Topic of Race](http://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html)"_Black or African American – A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa."_ which includes 100% of every human who has ever lived on this Earth. You, me, Shaun King… ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271/562 "2015-08-24T02:51:17Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If anyone seriously doubts the science behind genetic genealogy, the [NIH website](http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/testing/ancestrytesting) gives some good information. > > You only get a good analysis if you use [single nucleotide polymorphisms](http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/genomicresearch/snp) as the more common mtDNA and y-Chromosome analysis only covers your matrilineal or matrilineal line, respectively. The SNP analysis looks at your entire genome, and thus all your ancestors back to the point where they stop to drop off. No on in this thread has posited serious doubts about the science behind genetic genealogy, but a few know that the concept of human races is false. You are conflating modern science with 19th century BS. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271/563 "2015-08-24T02:59:29Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > One last time: You are conflating two separate things: 1) The idea that the human species can be divided into one set of “races” corresponding to something that is biologically meaningful, and 2) Whether one can use DNA to understand one’s ethno-geographic ancestry and tie that the social construct of race as used in the US. The latter is done all the time. If it turns out that your ancestry is mixed in a certain way, your DNA is not able to tell you whether you are going to self-identify with one ethnic group or another, but it’s going to tell you which ethnic groups you came from, whether you choose to identify with them or not. Yes, “ethnic group **s** you came from”. We almost all came from several groupS. Altho the Census has some paragraphs which explain, they do not actually _define_ which group you should choose. In fact if you " identify with more than one race " you can choose both or either. If you are 1/8 this and 1/8 that and 3/4 the other, the Census will allow you to **choose** , _this_, \*that \*or “the other” or any combo. I.e Self-Identify. And as they say “The Census Bureau collects racial data in accordance with guidelines provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and these data are based on self-identification.” and “The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and \*\*not an attempt to define race \*\*biologically, anthropologically, or genetically.” (bolding mine) Thus, The Census makes it clear-\*\* they do not attempt to define race. \*\* They give guidelines, not definitions. There is no US Govt Defintion of race, and in fact the Census specifically says they are NOT attempting to define race. ---
**Author:** ![inscrutable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a88e4f/32.png) [@inscrutable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inscrutable)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271/564 "2015-08-24T03:05:32Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > [About the Topic of Race](http://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html)"_Black or African American – A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa."_ which includes 100% of every human who has ever lived on this Earth. You, me, Shaun King… You’re honestly not suggesting that All Lives Matter??? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271/565 "2015-08-24T03:14:41Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > No on in this thread has posited serious doubts about the science behind genetic genealogy, but a few know that the concept of human races is false. > > You are conflating modern science with 19th century BS. I’m conflating nothing. I’m not using 19th century science. Let me ask you a simple question, since you are now saying you are OK with genetic testing for genealogy. Since our concept or race today is closely tied to phenotype, are you going to say that genetic testing for phenotype is 100% BS? That we have zero probability of determining whether a person would be considered white or black based on their genotype? That is what 100% BS means. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271/566 "2015-08-24T03:23:27Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > For #2, I think the point is that there are some “ethnic groups”, like “black people” in America, that seem to have nothing (or virtually nothing) to do with genetics. Really? If I were to say that 95% of Americans with \> 50% African ancestry self-identify as African-American, would you still say that? That’s what we get from [**MfM’s** Vox graph.](http://www.vox.com/2015/8/19/9180389/the-shaun-king-controversy-explained) ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271/567 "2015-08-24T03:26:17Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m conflating nothing. I’m not using 19th century science. > > Let me ask you a simple question, since you are now saying you are OK with genetic testing for genealogy. Since our concept or race today is closely tied to phenotype, are you going to say that genetic testing for phenotype is 100% BS? That we have zero probability of determining whether a person would be considered white or black based on their genotype? That is what 100% BS means. Yes, it is 100 percent impossible to determine whether you are of the black race based on phenotype, because there’s is no single genetic expression or group of phenotypic expressions that definitively draw the line between black and non-black as the black race functions in American society. That is the whole point of saying that race is not biological. It’s not because we didn’t have a good enough laboratory procedure. It’s because blackness has no biological definition. You can use genetic testing to roughly determine the geographical origin of some set of your ancestors. This tells you neither what race _they_ were—they could not even have had the same concept of race that we do—nor what race you are. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271/568 "2015-08-24T03:31:14Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m conflating nothing. I’m not using 19th century science. > > Let me ask you a simple question, since you are now saying you are OK with genetic testing for genealogy. **Since our concept or race today is closely tied to phenotype** , are you going to say that genetic testing for phenotype is 100% BS? That we have zero probability of determining whether a person would be considered white or black based on their genotype? That is what 100% BS means. That bolded claim is 100% wrong, only supremacists and people ignorant of what race is make that claim. Maybe you don’t quite grasp that there is no “race” in humans. In biological taxonomy or in genealogical evidence. That does not mean there are no patterns or groupings, but there is no race, no separate sub-species or even strains of humans. When used in reference to homosapien race is only a social construct. But you have failed to even give a definition of what white and black is, nor can you call them the “scientific” names that were used before the theory of human races was proven wrong. So if you insist on using victorian era science terms like “human race” how about you provide a definition on what you think makes a person a nigroid and what makes them a caucasoid or a mongoloid? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271/569 "2015-08-24T03:39:32Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Yes, it is 100 percent impossible to determine whether you are of the black race based on phenotype, because there’s is no single genetic expression or group of phenotypic expressions that definitively draw the line between black and non-black as the black race functions in American society. Really? There is no one in the US whom everyone would look at and say “that’s a black guy”? Not one single person? If you really believe that, then I give up. I don’t live in the same world that you do. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271/570 "2015-08-24T03:43:48Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Really? There is no one in the US whom everyone would look at and say “that’s a black guy”? Not one single person? If you really believe that, then I give up. I don’t live in the same world that you do. Wait, so now ‘the man on the street’ is a scientist and/or expert on race? But your refusal or inability to provide a definition demonstrates the problem with the concept of race, it is not based on empirical evidence, it is an arbitrary classification with no meaning. Maybe you should google “racial classification” it may open your eyes on why it is not a real scientific classification. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271/571 "2015-08-24T03:51:42Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > That bolded claim is 100% wrong, only supremacists and people ignorant of what race is make that claim. I’m making that claim. Call me what you will. > [@](#): > > Maybe you don’t quite grasp that there is no “race” in humans. In biological taxonomy or in genealogical evidence. That’s rich. You’re the one claiming that genetic testing to determine race is “100% BS”. I’m afraid you don’t understand the difference between “not 100% accurate” and “100% BS”. No one would claim to have a genetic test that was 100% accurate. But to claim that any test is 0% accurate (which is what 100% BS means) is laughable on the face of it. I only have to be right once to prove you wrong. You simply don’t understand the problem with race as it applies to our species. It actually has two meanings, and one we can dismiss out of hand-- sub-species. If you know what a sub-species is, then we just don’t qualify because we differ clinaly, while a true subspecies differs discontinuously. The more common, social construct of race has other problems. It’s not that such definitions can’t be correlated to genetics, it’s that ANY NUMBER OF THEM can be correlated to genetics. I can come up with 1,000 racial classifications that correlate reasonably weill with genetics. But what use is that? What makes more sense: 1. Having 1,000 definitions of race, all of which are equally valid -or- 1. Junking the idea altogether and realizing that race isn’t something that has a biological significance. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271/572 "2015-08-24T03:54:08Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Really? There is no one in the US whom everyone would look at and say “that’s a black guy”? Not one single person? If you really believe that, then I give up. I don’t live in the same world that you do. This is not the claim you made. For race to be a scientific classification, you have to be able to come up with a genetic definition that accounts for _every_ person that our society defines as black and non-black, and you can’t do that, not with any combination of skin color or hair curliness or nose flatness or lip width or penis length or booty size. There are black people on both sides of any such line you attempt to draw, unless you define blackness so broadly, that most people who consider themselves white will be defined as black. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271/573 "2015-08-24T03:54:32Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Wait, so now ‘the man on the street’ is a scientist and/or expert on race? When we speak of race as a social construct, sort of yes. He is an expert, but not a scientist because we’re dealing with a social construct, not a scientific definition. What do you think a “social construct” is, and how do you think it is used? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271/574 "2015-08-24T03:56:19Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > When we speak of race as a social construct, sort of yes. He is an expert, but not a scientist because we’re dealing with a social construct, not a scientific definition. What do you think a “social construct” is, and how do you think it is used? Pick one—is it social or is it biological? There can be no biological test for a social classification. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271/575 "2015-08-24T03:56:56Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > This is not the claim you made. For race to be a scientific classification, you have to be able to come up with a genetic definition that accounts for _every_ person that our society defines as black and non-black, and you can’t do that, not with any combination of skin color or hair curliness or nose flatness or lip width or penis length or booty size. There are black people on both sides of any such line you attempt to draw, unless you define blackness so broadly, that most people who consider themselves white will be defined as black. Well, you made two mistakes there (maybe more, I stopped counting): 1. I never said race was a scientific classification. In fact, I’ve said several times that it wasn’t. 2. That science has to be 100% accurate. Science is rarely, if ever, 100% accurate. You know that “correlated to” usually means some margin of error, right? ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271/576 "2015-08-24T03:58:32Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m making that claim. Call me what you will. > That’s rich. You’re the one claiming that genetic testing to determine race is “100% BS”. I’m afraid you don’t understand the difference between “not 100% accurate” and “100% BS”. No one would claim to have a genetic test that was 100% accurate. But to claim that any test is 0% accurate (which is what 100% BS means) is laughable on the face of it. I only have to be right once to prove you wrong. > > You simply don’t understand the problem with race as it applies to our species. It actually has two meanings, and one we can dismiss out of hand-- sub-species. If you know what a sub-species is, then we just don’t qualify because we differ clinaly, while a true subspecies differs discontinuously. > > The more common, social construct of race has other problems. It’s not that such definitions can’t be correlated to genetics, it’s that ANY NUMBER OF THEM can be correlated to genetics. I can come up with 1,000 racial classifications that correlate reasonably weill with genetics. But what use is that? What makes more sense: > > 1. Having 1,000 definitions of race, all of which are equally valid > > -or- > > 1. Junking the idea altogether and realizing that race isn’t something that has a biological significance. All people are ignorant of almost all things, none of us know everything and there are a lot of things in the world. No I am saying there is no definition of race is not purely a social construct, and outside of the social construct, science has chosen #2 because the concept of race failed to meet the bar. And as another poster linked above, the way we use “race” in the social construct is arbitrary. > [@](#): > > The categories that > were developed represent a politicalsocial > construct designed to be used in > the collection of data on the race and > ethnicity of major broad population > groups in this country, and are not > anthropologically or scientifically > based. > **[97-17664.pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1997-07-09/pdf/97-17664.pdf)** > > 1325.46 KB But yes, if you cannot define what you call white or black it cannot be tested with science, so the fact that you admit you cannot provide a definition means all I am doing here debating you is wasting my evening. But yes, using genetic testing for “Race” is bunk, because you can’t use science to detect if a person fits into random, undefinable bins in a purely social construct. But that does not mean that we cannot tell that someone is descended from people who originated from a particular place. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271/577 "2015-08-24T03:59:08Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, you made two mistakes there (maybe more, I stopped counting): > > 1. I never said race was a scientific classification. In fact, I’ve said several times that it wasn’t. If it’s not a scientific classification, you can’t have a genetic test for it. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271/578 "2015-08-24T04:00:38Z")
How about you show us where actual genetic scientists are claiming that they can identify your race using DNA testing? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271/579 "2015-08-24T04:04:47Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > If it’s not a scientific classification, you can’t have a genetic test for it. Then it’s a good thing I never said you could! You can develop a genetic test that predicts race better than a random guess. Actually, considerably better. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271/580 "2015-08-24T04:09:12Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Then it’s a good thing I never said you could! You can develop a genetic test that predicts race better than a random guess. Actually, considerably better. You cannot have s genetic test for a classification that is not genetic. Period. Come back when you have a genetic definition of a race. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shaun-king-daily-kos-writer-black-lives-matter-activist-really-white/728271.md?page=30)