A person's legal racial identity should be determined by:

[Rickeroo]

Since we have affirmative action and punishment for racial discrimination, there is at least a de facto legal racial identity/definition. Therefore, one's race must be a legal status in order for discrimination laws to function.

Please give your input as to which racial metrics or methods should be used to determine legal racial identity, and who decides what race we are for the purposes of a racial discrimination case.

Your thoughts, please.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Since we have affirmative action and punishment for racial discrimination, there is at least a de facto legal racial identity/definition. Therefore, one's race must be a legal status in order for discrimination laws to function.

Please give your input as to which racial metrics or methods should be used to determine legal racial identity, and who decides what race we are for the purposes of a racial discrimination case.

Your thoughts, please.

IMO if we really want to get rid of racism, then no one should be identified by race at all.

Each person should be judged by their character, skills for a particular employment, and other tests of individual merit.

You cannot demand respect, you must earn it.

IMO people who keep emphasizing their differences based on immutable physical characteristics in efforts to demand respect and advantages are merely maintaining racial divisions and encouraging conflicts.

 

[Rickeroo]

IMO if we really want to get rid of racism, then no one should be identified by race at all.

Each person should be judged by their character, skills for a particular employment, and other tests of individual merit.

You cannot demand respect, you must earn it.

IMO people who keep emphasizing their differences based on immutable physical characteristics in efforts to demand respect and advantages are merely maintaining racial divisions and encouraging conflicts.

I agree with you - any mention of race in any government or business capacity is akin to vomit. However, given that there does exist racial discrimination laws, this must also mean that one's race is legally recognized in some capacity. It is the nature of that legal recognition that I'm after in this thread.

 

[Mr Person]

IMO if we really want to get rid of racism, then no one should be identified by race at all.

Each person should be judged by their character, skills for a particular employment, and other tests of individual merit.

You cannot demand respect, you must earn it.

IMO people who keep emphasizing their differences based on immutable physical characteristics in efforts to demand respect and advantages are merely maintaining racial divisions and encouraging conflicts.

Thhhhtpptpptt....

Which would conveniently preclude the possibility of comparing statistics of person with race as a factor, which itself would help prevent it from being discovered that racism persisted despite society's pretense of ending it by not mentioning race, which would only perpetuate rather than end racism. Refusing to talk about a problem doesn't make the problem disappear (outside of the refuser's head, that is).

Nice way of demanding a principle which if enforced would mean the existence or extent of racism would be utterly impossible to gauge, while simultaneously wink wink nudge nudge'ing it into a vague suggestion that maybe the existence of racism is down to the people who wonder about whether people are being treated differently based on race.

Really quite clever.

You cannot demand respect, you must earn it.

Actually, people who are disrespected based on race (the lightest of racism) can demand respect. The racist doesn't get to insist that those he/she looks down on prove that they should not be looked down on.

Again, "clever."

IMO people who keep emphasizing their differences based on immutable physical characteristics in efforts to demand respect and advantages are merely maintaining racial divisions and encouraging conflicts.

Why the dishonest pretense?

You know perfectly well a complaint about racism isn't [respect me because I'm black]. You know perfectly well that the complaint is [stop disrespecting me because I'm black].

So why the pretense?

 

[ttwtt78640]

The person themselves, of course.

 

[spud_meister]

Race is a subjective construct based on a few aspects of physical appearance. It should be up to a person to define their own racial identity (note that's not the same as saying other people have to agree with that).

 

[ecofarm]

Thhhhtpptpptt....

Which would conveniently preclude the possibility of comparing statistics of person with race as a factor, which itself would help prevent it from being discovered that racism persisted despite society's pretense of ending it by not mentioning race, which would only perpetuate rather than end racism. Refusing to talk about a problem doesn't make the problem disappear (outside of the refuser's head, that is).

Nice way of demanding a principle which if enforced would mean the existence or extent of racism would be utterly impossible to gauge, while simultaneously wink wink nudge nudge'ing it into a vague suggestion that maybe the existence of racism is down to the people who wonder about whether people are being treated differently based on race.

Really quite clever.





Actually, people who are disrespected based on race (the lightest of racism) can demand respect. The racist doesn't get to insist that those he/she looks down on prove that they should not be looked down on.

Again, "clever."








Why the dishonest pretense?

You know perfectly well a complaint about racism isn't [respect me because I'm black]. You know perfectly well that the complaint is [stop disrespecting me because I'm black].

So why the pretense?

And yet some will still, "we should just ignore it, it will go away". Like they don't support racism.

 

[Rickeroo]

Race is a subjective construct based on a few aspects of physical appearance. It should be up to a person to define their own racial identity (note that's not the same as saying other people have to agree with that).

I appreciate your post, but there are problems with racial self-determination in a discrimination case. For example, I could claim I'm black and that Harvard didn't admit me, though I'm mostly Irish and have very light skin. Assuming it's impossible to legally discriminate against one's own race, a black man could be refused service at a white guy's store, then the white guy simply chooses to identify as black in court. We then come to the question of whether there are duration requirements or behavior requirements when one declares their race.

Therefore, I think the only sensible option in a society where de facto legal racial identity exists is to have everyone be categorized by the government via DNA or other racial metrics.

 

[Mr Person]

Race is a subjective construct based on a few aspects of physical appearance.

As compared to the genetics and epi-genetics of biology, yes.

As compare to **** that actually happens between human beings, no.

It should be up to a person to define their own racial identity (note that's not the same as saying other people have to agree with that).

See, I find it kind of hard to not feel that it's silly to define race such that a white woman can claim to be a black woman (despite living that way), but on the other hand, I cannot come up with an objective formula for something that really is a construct based on appearance.

But despite my inability to be specific about this, it is still clear that in general and in certain areas, people who look darker than a really 'white' person do generally get treated worse. So it sort of exists but doesn't exist, and doesn't exist but does. (Translation: if real things happen to people based on appearance, which masquerades for fictional "race", then race exists in a real sense apart from biology).

 

[Mr Person]

And yet some will still, "we should just ignore it, it will go away". Like they don't support racism.

If there's one move I resent more than anything, it's the "I'm gonna say this, but I'm gonna stop short of saying it, so I'll say the thing that sort of implies it without going quite there"

 

[ecofarm]

If there's one move I resent more than anything, it's the "I'm gonna say this, but I'm gonna stop short of saying it, so I'll say the thing that sort of implies it without going quite there"

You don't need to worry too much about the post(s) you quoted. That racism was obvious enough for anyone who objects to racism.

Sure not all racism is "violent crime is a black problem!" Some is a bit more subtle. But that was pretty obvious.

 

[spud_meister]

I appreciate your post, but there are problems with racial self-determination in a discrimination case. For example, I could claim I'm black and that Harvard didn't admit me, though I'm mostly Irish and have very light skin. Assuming it's impossible to legally discriminate against one's own race, a black man could be refused service at a white guy's store, then the white guy simply chooses to identify as black in court. We then come to the question of whether there are duration requirements or behavior requirements when one declares their race.

That's nonsense. Can you point to any racial discrimination laws that take the race of the discriminator into account?

Therefore, I think the only sensible option in a society where de facto legal racial identity exists is to have everyone be categorized by the government via DNA or other racial metrics.

Using the "one drop" rule? Or going with the Nazi's "three grandparents"? What race is someone with a parent from Japan and one from Sudan?

 

[uptower]

IMO if we really want to get rid of racism, then no one should be identified by race at all.

Each person should be judged by their character, skills for a particular employment, and other tests of individual merit.

You cannot demand respect, you must earn it.

That would be nice in theory but in practice we all see racial differences and many people make judgments based on these. Not that I have an answer for the OP. But though God created us all equal, it's hard to get everyone to play along.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's nonsense. Can you point to any racial discrimination laws that take the race of the discriminator into account?



Using the "one drop" rule? Or going with the Nazi's "three grandparents"? What race is someone with a parent from Japan and one from Sudan?

The one that gets them the job, government contract or college admission advantage, of course.

 

[spud_meister]

As compared to the genetics and epi-genetics of biology, yes.

As compare to **** that actually happens between human beings, no.

See, I find it kind of hard to not feel that it's silly to define race such that a white woman can claim to be a black woman (despite living that way), but on the other hand, I cannot come up with an objective formula for something that really is a construct based on appearance.

But despite my inability to be specific about this, it is still clear that in general and in certain areas, people who look darker than a really 'white' person do generally get treated worse. So it sort of exists but doesn't exist, and doesn't exist but does. (Translation: if real things happen to people based on appearance, which masquerades for fictional "race", then race exists in a real sense apart from biology).

Race is a cultural construct. There's no objective way to categorise or determine race, that's why people with centuries of mixed African-European ancestry are classified a the same race as a Kenyan immigrant. Self-identification is really the only way to classify race that makes sense, despite the few people who would intentionally "misidentify" themselves for whatever reason.

 

[Rickeroo]

Nice way of demanding a principle which if enforced would mean the existence or extent of racism would be utterly impossible to gauge,

Indeed - this would mean that to gauge the extent of racism, one's racial identity must be known and properly quantified. How should racial identity determined? One way of looking at this is to imagine a white person not admitted to Harvard, then claiming he's black and filing a racial discrimination suit.

Of course it would be thrown out of court - but on what grounds?

 

[spud_meister]

The one that gets them the job, government contract or college admission advantage, of course.

Which is a whole 'nother topic all together.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Which is a whole 'nother topic all together.

Perhaps just another race related issue. My point was that what a racial designation is used for is a key factor in deciding who should select (assign?) the race of each person.

 

[maxparrish]

Since we have affirmative action and punishment for racial discrimination, there is at least a de facto legal racial identity/definition. Therefore, one's race must be a legal status in order for discrimination laws to function.

Please give your input as to which racial metrics or methods should be used to determine legal racial identity, and who decides what race we are for the purposes of a racial discrimination case.

Your thoughts, please.

I will provide the serious thought such questions warrant.

I think diet preferences are the most accurate measure of race:

Chinese eat dogs
Japanese eat raw sea slugs
Afro Americans eat water melon and fried chicken
Germans eat sauerkraut
Mexicans eat tacos
Italians eat guineas
and Real Africans eat each other.

There you have it, in a nutshell.

 

[Waddy]

Science says we're all part of the human race, but history says we're all tribal. I am tired of hearing that racism is usually white against black, or something close to that. I've lived all over the world, and racism is alive and well everywhere, and color isn't even the biggest factor. Japanese are very racist against Koreans. Japanese and Chinese often consider each other inferior. China has a lot of internal racism, being made up of many different tribes. Just about all Chinese hold racist views against Tibetan people. In the Middle East Arabs hold racist views on Iranians, and they all dislike Kurds. Mexicans consider people of indian descent inferior. When I lived in Hawaii it was apparent the Chinese didn't much approve of the Japanese and both had racist views toward Polynesians. Even if we all were exactly the same race, all the same exact DNA, we would invent ways to feel superior. Maybe we would divide up based on IQ. Oh wait, that's already happening......

 

[Anarchon]

Since we have affirmative action and punishment for racial discrimination, there is at least a de facto legal racial identity/definition. Therefore, one's race must be a legal status in order for discrimination laws to function.

Please give your input as to which racial metrics or methods should be used to determine legal racial identity, and who decides what race we are for the purposes of a racial discrimination case.

Your thoughts, please.

There should be no such thing as "legal racial identity."

 

[The Mark]

Since we have affirmative action and punishment for racial discrimination, there is at least a de facto legal racial identity/definition. Therefore, one's race must be a legal status in order for discrimination laws to function.

Please give your input as to which racial metrics or methods should be used to determine legal racial identity, and who decides what race we are for the purposes of a racial discrimination case.

Your thoughts, please.

Ideally, it should not be a consideration.

Trying to define it introduces issues, as you point out.

If we let individuals determine it themselves, weird outliers will arise.
If we go by the vague consensus as current, it's an aspect of racist systems, and there is a whole bunch of associated negatives depending on race.

By DNA is utterly unacceptable, and is not an option.
Far more potential issues down that route.

 

[Cardinal]

I'm not aware that there's any issue with the current method of determining race, and I'm not personally bothered by it, whatever it is.

 

[TheParser]

Very serious question.

Because of affirmative action laws (which will be with us until at least 2050, when our minorities become the majority), I think that a person's ethnicity in disputed cases should be decided by a jury based on a person's looks.

For example, we have all read about some non-Caucasians who have passed for Caucasians. If they look Caucasian and claim to be Caucasian, then -- in my opinion -- common sense dictates that a rational jury should rule they are Caucasian for all intents and purposes.


On the other hand, my hypothetical jury would rule that a certain Senator is NOT a Native American.

 

[uptower]

The one that gets them the job, government contract or college admission advantage, of course.

'Caucasian' then