There is no specific DNA marker for “black”.
Does anyone here care to define who is and is not “black”?
You know what the federal Government defines are 'black"? Self-identify. He Self-identifies as black, thus he is.
anything else is racist.
Well yeah, you can see where it would be a big deal in White Supremacist circles. I was talking about society at large.
Which goes back to the OP. Can race be self identified?
It never is with Breitbart. A proud tradition started by their (happily) late founder and continued from there.
Even if this were true, I’m not sure it matters (see next paragraph). But it’s also not true. You cannot science your way out of the category error here, which is that race is a social concept not a biological one. DNA testing can tell us a lot about what part of the world one’s ancestors came from. It cannot tell us definitively which ancestors, if any, would be considered African-American in 1910, 1960, or 2015 America. What if his father had the phenotype of Wentworth Miller or Benjamin Jealous? Would that mean he had an African-American father or not?
Doesn’t it make all the difference in this case? What’s the difference between having a black-enough phenotype to “pass” as black (and actually doing so) and being black?
IOW, there are two populations of black people. Those who have no choice but to be categorized as black by American society, and those who could self-identify as black or white. Why does the difference between them matter for the purposes of this controversy?
Years ago we debated on this board whether race exists. I said it did, and defined it as the box you check when asked what your race is. I argue it’s a sociologically valid concept. It is not a concept that is used by biologists, either for humans or other species.
Personally I think if you have whispering campaigns and racial slurs hurled at you as a kid, it’s ok to self identify as black: your adversaries didn’t have a problem with this after all. Mostly I don’t obsess myself with the race of other people, though documented acts of deception might get my notice. Over at Vox, German Lopez characterizes the concept of race as slippery.
But modern conservatives care about this sort of thing. Still. Very much so, as seen by this thread. I just don’t like bullies.
ETA: Black guy, apparently: x.com
ETA2: Ditto: x.com . Sociology and personal hurdles.
But even if race can’t be self-identified, part of the issue here is whether there’s an implication that Shaun King is an all purpose phony. If he was told by his mother that he was partially black, then there would not be that implication, even if he turned out to be completely white.
This “controversy” centers around whether or not he (allegedly thru his father) had recent African ancestry. If the DNA test confirms that, case closed. It doesn’t matter whether his father self-identified as black or white. IOW, just because my father chose to “pass” does not mean I have to choose to “pass”, also. It’s a different world we live in now than in 1920 or even 1960.
If he has no recent African ancestry, then maybe there is another narrative as to why he identifies as “black”. If there were, in fact, “whispers” and “rumors” that he had black ancestry when he was growing up, and if he did, in fact, self-identify as black because of those rumors, then we have the explanation. Once he finds out whether he really and truly has recent African ancestry, then he can decide whether or not to continue to self-identify as “black”.
As for your two populations, let’s add a third: Those who are rumored to have black ancestry, and are thought of as black, but don’t actually have any such ancestry. Those people might have Arab ancestry, Native American ancestry, or just be a dark- completed white guy. It’s possible Shaun is in that 3rd category.
N.B.: I, personally, don’t care. I’m willing to take him at his word. If I were him, though, I’d be curious enough to get myself tested. Anonymously. Whether or not I would go public with the results, I don’t know.
Correct. There is no one specific DNA marker that if you have it you’re “black” and you’re not black if you dont. DNA tests are by no means useless, but in the case of a person with mixed ancestry, they are meaningless to use to categorize someone as “black” or not.
Nor have anyone come up with acceptable scientific definition of 'black". Are we going by the old racist “on drop rule”? Heck, pretty much any such definition is “racist”.
That’s where we disagree, I guess. I think it centers around whether he is black.
I would have thought people on the right-wing were outraged–or whatever, giddy–by the prospect that someone who grew up identifying and being treated as society as white had claimed some advantage by switching identification later in life having not received any disparate treatment and not having had any lived experience as a black person. I can’t understand why the likes of *the Daily Caller *would care about the separate question of how recently his paternal ancestors left Africa.
Nope. If my sibling suddenly decided to self-identify as black, I’d call BULLSHIT and that would not make me a racist.
In addition to subjectivity, there is the matter of photography. Here’s a black and white pic of Thurgood Marshall. Now I know he’s black, so he looks black. But without that knowledge, I’m not sure how I would peg him based only on that pic. I might not peg him at all. x.com
Back in the 1800s Irish were considered to be a race. Given the details of his upbringing saying, no, Shaun King is definitely not biracial seems to me to be a stretch. A highly motivated stretch.
ETA: JM: Oh sure. I assume John Mace’s brother didn’t have racial slurs thrown at him as a kid. For example. I remind everyone though that King is claiming to be biracial, in his words.
As above, they would care whether there’s an implication that this BLM leader is a phony. (I assume from your question that the Daily Caller is a conservative outlet.)
Has anyone said - based on pictures alone - that he is definitely not biracial?
Consider this hypothetical:
Suppose a Wentworth Miller-type fellow had always identified as white and was treated as white by society. In order to get a college scholarship, he suddenly starts identifying as black.
Would that situation be acceptable? Does it automatically become acceptable if his paternal ancestors are, in fact, recently from Africa?
ISTM that it certainly wouldn’t be sufficient that his genes were recently from Africa. What would make it acceptable is if his recent ancestors did not pass as white and therefore he is, to some extent, negatively affected by white supremacy. If you agree, then I think that makes it clear that the controversy here is not about DNA.
Perhaps a better way of framing it is saying it centers around whether or not he has a legitimate reason to self-identify as black. Is he just another Rachel Dolezal, or is there more to his narrative that gives him some claim to call himself black?
For instance, do you consider Rachel Dolezal to be black? I don’t.
Then what defines being “black” other than “not being your brother”?:dubious:
One drop? One eighth? One half? One half of what?
Who is “black”?
Does she say she’s black? If so, she is.
Except in the rarest of cases, if you’re an American and your DNA says you have recent ancestors from Africa, you’re not going to have to look far back on your family tree to find someone who did not have the opportunity to pass as white. That may be a limit based on the accuracy of our technology at present and could change in the future.
How about if my recent ancestors from Africa were Afrikaans-Boers? Or from Egypt?
Being African does not make you Black.