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

[AGENT J]

1.) IMO if we really want to get rid of racism, then no one should be identified by race at all.
2.) Each person should be judged by their character, skills for a particular employment, and other tests of individual merit.
3.) You cannot demand respect, you must earn it.
4.) 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.

1.) cant do that until we live in a society where that would work, america isnt there yet sadly
2.) I agree and normal people already do it that way
3.) i agree but thats this have to do with the topic?
4.) again who is doing that? some small minority of nutters regardless of race?????? nobody cares about them nor do nutters affect normal people

 

[Rickeroo]

That isn’t true. Discrimination laws aren’t about actions against people who have a particular characteristic, they’re about actions against people because they are believed to have a particular characteristic. If someone discriminates against you because they think you’re (say) Jewish, gay or French, it’d still be illegal even if they’re wrong. It doesn’t matter what race you, the government or the courts say you are, all that matters is what the accused believes and that being the motive for their discriminatory actions.

“Affirmative action” and the like obviously provides a different issue but that’s just another reason why it’s a mistake in the first place.

I understand what you're saying, but this assumes that the perpetrator will openly state their reasons for the discrimination - "Leave my store because you're black" - "I'm beating you right now because you're gay". If those reasons aren't stated, then the precise minority status of the victim must be assessed. How black or gay the victim is would shine a light on possible motives. Hence, a scientific, court-worthy determination of blackness or gayness is required.

 

[Perotista]

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.

DNA tests could really throw a shocker into the mix of some. Probably a lot of folks would find out they aren't as pure as they thought. I had ancestry DNA do mine, there was a surprise. Although luckily I have a gemology book that takes my family back to around 1600. It was easy enough to track how and where that wildcard came from.

 

[HonestJoe]

I understand what you're saying, but this assumes that the perpetrator will openly state their reasons for the discrimination - "Leave my store because you're black" - "I'm beating you right now because you're gay". If those reasons aren't stated, then the precise minority status of the victim must be assessed. How black or gay the victim is would shine a light on possible motives. Hence, a scientific, court-worthy determination of blackness or gayness is required.

No, you’re still wrong as per how existing laws are written and are actually implemented right now. Clearly the offender openly stating their discriminatory motive is helpful but indirect or circumstantial evidence can also build a valid case, just like it can for any other offence. Regardless, their perception and motive is key to the discrimination, not the characteristic (or sometimes even existence) of any immediate victim.

And even if you could establish some objective measurement of categorisation, it doesn’t really help it determining discrimination. Whether someone is an officially registered African-American/homosexual/Christian/whatever (scary concept in itself) or not, you still face exactly the same challenge of proving the accused was actively discriminating on that basis. After all, discrimination on grounds of sex, age or nationality are no easier to convict than on grounds of race, religion or orientation despite the former (generally) having more clearly defined categorisation.

 

[Nilly]

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 must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In an ideal world - race would be invisible - but it's not. Due to individual bias, due to social bias. As long as there is racial inequality in the US (of which there is plenty - see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_inequality_in_the_United_States - in wealth, in housing, in health outcomes) then simply ignoring it just sweeps the problem under a rug.

 

[Rickeroo]

No, you’re still wrong as per how existing laws are written and are actually implemented right now. Clearly the offender openly stating their discriminatory motive is helpful but indirect or circumstantial evidence can also build a valid case, just like it can for any other offence. Regardless, their perception and motive is key to the discrimination, not the characteristic (or sometimes even existence) of any immediate victim.

And even if you could establish some objective measurement of categorisation, it doesn’t really help it determining discrimination. Whether someone is an officially registered African-American/homosexual/Christian/whatever (scary concept in itself) or not, you still face exactly the same challenge of proving the accused was actively discriminating on that basis. After all, discrimination on grounds of sex, age or nationality are no easier to convict than on grounds of race, religion or orientation despite the former (generally) having more clearly defined categorisation.

I can understand your point. However, when you only have indirect or circumstantial evidence in order to determine whether one has actively discriminated on the basis of race, a key piece of evidence must be the difference in races between plaintiff and defendant. Racial discrimination between two white people would never hold - it is the difference in races that is vital to any discrimination case, especially with indirect evidence.

A key point here is whether or not a white person can discriminate against another white person based on race. If so, then race means nothing.

If a white person can't possibly be held liable for racial discrimination against another white person, then the quantified racial difference between the white person and the person's race that was discriminated against becomes vital.

 

[HonestJoe]

I can understand your point. However, when you only have indirect or circumstantial evidence in order to determine whether one has actively discriminated on the basis of race, a key piece of evidence must be the difference in races between plaintiff and defendant.

Sometimes, but only by the general perception of the defendant and that doesn’t require any kind of strict scientific measurement. You’re still missing the key fact that discrimination is based entirely on the offenders perception – the reality of any victims is irrelevant. There might not even be an actual victim; a shopkeeper putting up a “No dogs, no blacks, no Irish” sign would be breaking discrimination law even if no black or Irish people see it.

A key point here is whether or not a white person can discriminate against another white person based on race. If so, then race means nothing.

Skin colour isn’t the same thing as race. Western European whites could discriminate against Eastern European whites, European Spaniards could discriminate against American Hispanics, West African Blacks could discriminate against East African Blacks etc. And while it would be an odd situation, it’s perfectly viable that a person could discriminate in favour of other races against their own, say a white employer choosing to employ a black candidate over a better white one to make their racial statistics look better.

Anyway, legally, “racial discrimination” will tend to cover discrimination on the basis of nationality, creed or culture too.

I agree that as a fundamental core principle, “race” as a division between human beings is fairly meaningless and tends to cause more harm than good. It remains a concept that lots of people hold to though and continue to actively discriminate against others based upon their perceptions and the law continues to account for that.

 

[Rickeroo]

Sometimes, but only by the general perception of the defendant and that doesn’t require any kind of strict scientific measurement. You’re still missing the key fact that discrimination is based entirely on the offenders perception – the reality of any victims is irrelevant. There might not even be an actual victim; a shopkeeper putting up a “No dogs, no blacks, no Irish” sign would be breaking discrimination law even if no black or Irish people see it.

Skin colour isn’t the same thing as race. Western European whites could discriminate against Eastern European whites, European Spaniards could discriminate against American Hispanics, West African Blacks could discriminate against East African Blacks etc. And while it would be an odd situation, it’s perfectly viable that a person could discriminate in favour of other races against their own, say a white employer choosing to employ a black candidate over a better white one to make their racial statistics look better.

Anyway, legally, “racial discrimination” will tend to cover discrimination on the basis of nationality, creed or culture too.

I agree that as a fundamental core principle, “race” as a division between human beings is fairly meaningless and tends to cause more harm than good. It remains a concept that lots of people hold to though and continue to actively discriminate against others based upon their perceptions and the law continues to account for that.

I agree that within the same race, color can vary. However, color and culture, at least as it applies to discrimination, must have a racial component. Take these examples:

White man comes back from vacation with a dark tan. Gets fired. Sues for color discrimination, gets nowhere. His color must be associated with race in order to have 'bite'.

White man eats a hot dog in front of his boss, gets fired the next day. Sues for culture discrimination (choice of foods). Gets nowhere. The culture practiced must be associated with a 'minority' race in order to have bite.

These would change if the darker color was natural skin tone, or if the food was Mexican and consumed by a Hispanic. Racheal Dolezal's hair, skin tone and cultural practices were entirely dismissed because she lacked the underlying genetics (or 'heritage' or another something that people can't do a thing about themselves). More importantly, the visual cues we got from Dolezal (hair style was one) were associated, correctly or incorrectly, with the black race.

Therefore, only certain hairstyles can be used as a basis of discrimination, or only certain foods / culture / language. When does a food, cultural practice, or hairstyle become important enough to matter in a discrimination suit? English doesn't matter, neither do hot dogs. Bring in Spanish and chimichangas, and the story changes radically - it's because we associate those cultural practices with Hispanics, even though any race is perfectly capable of speaking Spanish or consuming a chimichanga.

My point is that we need a scale by which traits of food consumption, language spoken, hairstyle and appearance would qualify as important in a discriminatory case.

 

[joko104]

The context of racism is global. G l o b a l. Spell it out again. Someday, maybe you'll have a clue what you're babbling about.

So now you are savior of the world of no individuals and everyone is just a bee of the hive - no communities, no different societies, just "global" people! :roll:

 

[ecofarm]

So now you are savior of the world of no individuals and everyone is just a bee of the hive - no communities, no different societies, just "global" people! :roll:

Racism is a social construct. It affects ALL black people, no matter where in the world they live. It is INESCAPABLE.

You want to pretend whites are oppressed.

That's the intellectual capacity of a child. Pathetic.

 

[HonestJoe]

My point is that we need a scale by which traits of food consumption, language spoken, hairstyle and appearance would qualify as important in a discriminatory case.

I don't know how many ways I can say it but you're simply wrong as per the law. If someone discriminates on ground they believe are based on race, it is illegal. End of story.

You're not only proposing a change in establishing a deterministic measure of race, you're also effectively proposing a change that discrimination is based on whether the victim has a legally defined race, regardless of the reason the defendant took their actions. Since everyone has a race, that is obviously ridiculous.

 

[Rickeroo]

I don't know how many ways I can say it but you're simply wrong as per the law. If someone discriminates on ground they believe are based on race, it is illegal. End of story.

You're not only proposing a change in establishing a deterministic measure of race, you're also effectively proposing a change that discrimination is based on whether the victim has a legally defined race, regardless of the reason the defendant took their actions. Since everyone has a race, that is obviously ridiculous.

Allow me to explain where the determined race of the plaintiff is vital. Let's say a town in 95% black. A white business owner sets up shop. 950 blacks apply, 50 whites apply. He hires the 50 white people and rejects every one of the black applicants for undetermined reasons. When addressing blacks, he uses politically correct terminology and has never been caught or recorded 'being racist'.

Could a black applicant bring a discrimination lawsuit? If so, on what grounds could they sue? My guess would be on the grounds of racial discrimination. Since the hired and rejected applicants are divided by race, it is the quantified difference between those two races that would give credence to the suit. The business owner's defense is that he did not bring race into account when hiring.

The circumstantial evidence (no blacks were hired) suggests that race was used as a consideration. It also requires that a de facto legal racial distinction exists between the white and black applicants. The lawyers and judges have to discuss "white" and "black", and these terms have to have significant, if not legal, meaning.

If that racial distinction does not exist in law, then the business owner gets to hire his 50 whites.

 

[HonestJoe]

If that racial distinction does not exist in law, then the business owner gets to hire his 50 whites.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist in law, I'm saying it doesn't need to be (and indeed can't be) definitively measured and categorised in the way your OP describes. Racial categories are about perception, it can even very between observers (such as outsiders seeing all blacks the same while they may well differentiate between West and East Africans). In the case of discrimination, it is that perception that is relevant. And since there have been plenty of successful discrimination cases on that basis, it clearly isn't necessary to measure things in the way you're talking about.

 

[Xelor]

Determination of racial identity should be something that isn't necessary; however, the world in which we live prohibits that normative stance from coming soon to fruition.


As go poll-noted methods of determining "racial identity," well, I'm hard pressed to identify any good way to evaluate with what race one identifies because race and identity are two very different qualities: the former is existential, whereas the latter is situational and cultural.[SUP]1[/SUP] Accordingly, the following remarks pertain to determining/designating one's race status (composition), not to one's racial identity.

• Self-declaration --> This method is reasonable in instances where the declaration doesn't (1) strain credulity and (2) yield endogenously positive (to the situation then at hand) returns.
• DNA test --> A DNA test alone isn't going to do it. The DNA test will aptly identify the nature of one's racial genome, and that's a fine start; however, there must also be, if one uses the DNA method, a bar of what makes one be "this" or "that" race.
• A ballpark, general social consensus (current method)
  • This not the current method. To wit, consider mixed-race folks who declare themselves of race X and who don't readily appear to be so. The current method is to use skin color as a proxy for race. Sure, most of the time, that method is accurate, but the OP asks about determining one's race rather than abducting to it.

Note:

1. I'm sure there are some white guys in the world who identify more with typical sociologically black African or African-American cultural mores and traditions than I ever will. Any number of whites born and raised in Africa, or whites who've inured themselfs into rap culture, are, notwithstanding their skin color, likely more "black" in their identity than I can or will ever be.
   
   Raise a white child in an otherwise preponderantly Black community of some stripe, and that child will identify with "all things" Black.

 

[CLAX1911]

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 say dissolve the need to legally recognize race

 

[Rickeroo]

I'm not saying it doesn't exist in law, I'm saying it doesn't need to be (and indeed can't be) definitively measured and categorised in the way your OP describes. Racial categories are about perception, it can even very between observers (such as outsiders seeing all blacks the same while they may well differentiate between West and East Africans). In the case of discrimination, it is that perception that is relevant. And since there have been plenty of successful discrimination cases on that basis, it clearly isn't necessary to measure things in the way you're talking about.

It's true that a typical American would find it difficult to discern between someone from Thailand and someone from Cambodia, meanwhile those two ethnicities would be able to tell each other apart instantly. However, the perception of race, while individual in nature, also tends to be empirical. Take for example a white man who got fired by another white man. In no way could he ever claim that he was fired because he was black. Perception doesn't count here - it is the empirical, actual race that does.

However, I will submit that there have been cases where perception of race counts. For example, someone mistakes a Sikh (Indian) for a Muslim (Arab), and targets them based on the false perception of Arabness. These are outliers though. Pretty much no one mistakes a black man for a white man and vice versa - the racial distinction between them isn't perception or choice, but empirical and set in stone. If I were the shop owner and didn't hire any blacks in a basically all-black town, there is no way I could say that I perceived those black people as white. I wouldn't be believed in court. Why? Because of the legally recognized empirical racial difference between white and black. It's unstated (and uncomfortable) to be sure, but it does exist.

It's that legal racial existence that I am against, and I'm trying to bring it to light here.