It's Kamala!

[Dill]

(08-24-2020, 11:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote:[url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-It-s-Kamala?pid=893882#pid893882][/url]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, why would you want to perpetuate this? 

You keep referencing "African features", what exactly do you mean by this?
 I ask again, as you seem to know, what exactly are these "African features?"
Sorry, this part really doesn't make sense.

I wouldn't. And don't. That's why  I have for years argued against using race as political marker. And I am not perpetuating it by referencing the history, or by affirming there is an African-American culture distinct from that of African diaspora in the Carribean and South America. Seems like you are denying this history and its effects, or implying that its recognition is validation of the one-drop rule.  

As I said above, "African features" would be facial features which, in some combination, triggered racial policing. E.g., dark and especially black skin. Thick noirette hair. And you are aware of how these and other genetic features were used to segregate African Americans. On this point I think that for once, we mean the same thing. You are not going to tell me that black people were not excluded from lunch counters in Birmingham Alabama in 1963 because of their black skin. So the question is why would you ask what "African features" are? 

I can see fodder for digressions here, which do not challenge at all what I have said about the construction of race in the US. E.g., some people of African descent can be very light skinned and some people who are not from Africa can be very dark. Or worse, recognition of different shades in skin color is itself somehow "racist."

To explain the part that doesn't makes sense--you heard me explain how race was a social construct for Leftists, then concluded it was "prison determinative" for no clear reason. No warrant for that inference.

(08-24-2020, 11:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Quote: Wrote: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. 

No, I really didn't.  You're arguing a different point than me.  I'm stating the left of today will use the same standard as the past to determine who is, and is not, black.  I make no claims on how this is used for, or against them, in society.  That's your joint.

Well you can't claim "the left" uses the one-drop rule without introducing legal discrimination any more than you could dissect a triangle without introducing geometry. If I'm "arguing a different point" its because you don't know what the one-drop rule is that you invokes, or how it was deployed. You are conflating different behaviors around recognition that some people have different skin colors. 

I have explained to you how "the left of today" treats race, cited two authors, and can provide more. Neither of those authors "use the same standard as the past."  Now it's clear that you can't cite any author that supports your claim.  

(08-24-2020, 11:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote: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. 

I'm sad to hear that.  I see them both as being of mixed ethnicity.  I'm sorry you completely discount their parent who was not black, especially as Obama's dad essentially abandoned him and he was raised by his mother and maternal grandparents.  What a disservice to their memory and effort to utterly discount their contribution both to his genetics and his upbringing.

So EVERYONE in the US labels Obama and Kaepernick as Black, including Obama and Kaepernick, and your take away is that I "completely discount the parent who was not black." I'd love to hear what Obama and Kaepernick thought of this dialogue and my "disservice" to the memory of their genetics. Both of these men grew up in an America which discounted their white parents, and that is why they grew up with a special interest in Black history and politics.  And they aren't perpetuating racism by their choice. They are challenging it. 

(08-24-2020, 11:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I just gave you two examples.
Sure, the exact thing happens in another country but in reverse, but you brought it up to prove what?
Who said it did?  However, utterly ignoring the entirety of someone's ancestry does.
I'm surprised you don't have even one.

Quote: Wrote: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.

An intriguingly odd statement for you to make considering your past comments about black Trump supporters.

Seeing as you have apparently given this a lot of thought I'm surprised you didn't provide even one example.

No, you've not given me a single example of a leftist who uses the one-drop rule or says someone one-eighth black has to be black.
You continue to deflect the question.  And the Brazil reference is another example of race is variously defined.

I have a feeling that you cannot specify what is "odd" about my statement. Mentioning "past comments about black Trump supporters" without quoting them or explaining their relevance is no more substantive than saying my "posting history" proves something. 

When you refuse to acknowedge specific examples, or to provide your own, or to define terms, or to reference unspecified "comments" as if its clear what they were and their relevance to this discusssion, you are not really arguing in good faith, are you? You are trying to critique my views, which I am always happy to explain and support, while exposing your own as little as possible. Nence the critique is ad hoc and reactive.

My curiosity is now piqued by this reticence. How does your advocacy for recognition of "mixed race" identities fit into current politics, where LsQM also research and celebrate mixed race identities?  Why is it so important to conflate left wing views on race with right--without evidence?