It's Kamala!

[Dill]

(08-24-2020, 07:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How could Obama be "black" if his mother was a white woman?  It is no more accurate to say he is black than to say he is white.  You've absolutely provided your use of these terms, and I find your use less than acceptable, at best self serving.

Why would someone who is no more black than white be labeled as black?  Why isn't (s)he white?  Oh wait, you're using the prison determinant of race, which is you are what you look like.  Not a good look in my opinion. 

What do you mean, "African features"?  What are these features you're alluding to?

The bold touches on why the Left-without-quotation-marks (hereafter LwQM) considers race a social/cultural/historical designation rather than a biological one. In the US, people were considered "black" even if they had only one black ancestor four generations back. That framing of race is what created "African Americans" as an ethnic group distinct from, say, Carribean or South Americans of African descent, places where the one-drop rule never obtained. 

So, going back to US history, even very light-skinned people with African features were legally "black" (owing to the one-drop rule) and came to indentify with the history and struggles of black people in the US. A "half white" person was wholly Black under the law, suffering the same exclusions. Many people today with African ancestry refuse the negative connotations formely imposed on all Blacks so-defined, and identify as "Black," even though only half or one quarter or less black. If a person with one quarter or less African ancestry wanted to identify as Black, the LwQM would have no problem with that, nor with a person of one quarter European ancestry who wanted to identify as White. 

"African features" would be primarily skin and facial features which, singly or in combination, could signal black ancestry to anyone policing racial divisions. 

To say that the LwQM view of race looks like a "prison determinant of race" is to say that in prison, race no important social classficatory function. Or it is still to misunderstand that view altogether.

(08-24-2020, 07:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ahh, now you're introducing the need "legal discrimination" into the mix.  Pleas don't bother.  I am referencing the almost complete tendency by those on the left to label a mixed race person, in which some of their ancestry is black, as "black".  

Well you introduced "legal discrimination" when you referenced the one-drop rule--a legal concept which enforced discrimination. You said "the Left" used it as well as the Klan. Perhaps you did not know what the one drop rule is, or why any common, ordinary recognition of any racial feature/identity, including self-identification out of pride, does not exemplify it. 

(08-24-2020, 07:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why aren't Obama or Kaepernick identified as white?  They are no more black than they are white, correct?  See, I personally don't care, at all.  People can identify as whatever they choose, but I do find it amusing that any amount of black ancestry gets one labeled as black by the left.  Feel free to offer a counter example.

You just acknowledged how the exact same principle works in reverse in Brazil.  A concept cannot work in reverse without the counterpart working as previously described.  

Well I can't exactly offer a "counter example" until I get an example. Virtually EVERYONE in the US "labels" Obama and Kaepernick as "Black," including Obama and Kaepernick (and probably you before this thread), which does not make ALL THOSE PEOPLE part of the the left or the right or the klan or exponents of the one drop rule. 

So again, it is not possible to know what you are really talking about when you say "the left" labels people with any amount of black ancestry as "black," and in some manner which makes them the mirror image of the Klan. I just cited two LwQM authors who DO NOT "label" people as you say but illuinate the social development of such labels. From you I still have no names, no examples, just this monolithic construction "the Left" with no face(s). 

Sure, there is a similar "reverse" one-drop principle at work in Brazil, and I defined it through a US counterpart. Merely noting that doesn't somehow connect it to  "the left" in either country, or make your point about how "the left" views race in the US. 

(08-24-2020, 07:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quite honestly though, this conversation is going in a direction I'm not inclined to continue.  As I said, I don't care what people want to identify as.  I just find it odd that a person with any black ancestry is considered black by people who say they strive for racial equality.  I guess the rest of their genetic ancestry is immaterial.  

?? I wasn't aware that recognition of "black ancestry" worked against racial equality, though denying it has often been an effect of racism. 

Frankly, it would be pretty odd to see a LwQM walking around saying "you got one eighth then you are black not white."  Could that have happened in 1935? Not sure. Maybe. Today a LwQM would be fine if someone with one eighth ancestry called himself white or black.  I'm not surprised you don't seem to have examples. 

A concluding note: People who self identify as or who are called "Black" in the US are not all "lefists." They comprise plenty of conservatives and liberals of all shades. They argue about what race is, what Black identity is, and the mix is complicated when people of color from other countries arrive in the US from the Carribean or India or South America and DO NOT identify as black, only to find themselves challenged by others to explain themselves. Outside of Fox, people don't designate all those people and their debates/positions as "the Left."