(June 12, 2015 at 1:07 pm)Alex K Wrote: Is there a hard legal definition in the US of when you are white or black, such that it could possibly be a legal issue?

I'm not sure, that's why I said "might". Thinking about it, it might only be a legal issue if you are trying to intentionally deceive someone. I mean, technically speaking we all have African ancestry in us at some point.

(June 12, 2015 at 1:07 pm)Alex K Wrote: Is there a hard legal definition in the US of when you are white or black, such that it could possibly be a legal issue?

At the national level?  I don't think so?

However, locally, there's probably plenty of shameful laws still on the books.

She is obviously Transracial. She was born white but is really black inside. I can't believe all the haters.

Maybe she can have a procedure done to make her outer appearance coincide with who she really is inside.

Am I the only one who found this story to be more hilarious than anything else? Esspecially funny to me is the fact it's the Eastern Washington NAACP. Eastern Washington is one of the whitest parts of the country. I grew up there and we had a total of 0 black people in my high school.

(June 12, 2015 at 12:08 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: ...

Why is the NAACP asking about race on their internal paperwork ?

...

Race information is often gathered for the purpose of making sure that government guidelines regarding discrimination are followed.  See:

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_race_color.html

If such data is not collected, how will one know if a company is discriminating on the basis of race or not?


As for this particular case, here is something that the NAACP has stated, according to CNN:

Quote:The NAACP issued a statement Friday on Rachel Dolezal's "enduring a legal issue with her family," saying, "We respect her privacy in this matter."

"One's racial identity is not a qualifying criteria or disqualifying standard for NAACP leadership," the group said. "The NAACP Alaska-Oregon-Washington State Conference stands behind Ms. Dolezal's advocacy record."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/us/washing...-identity/

The only gripe I have with this statement is that it is singular "criterion"

(June 12, 2015 at 1:57 pm)Alex K Wrote: The only gripe I have with this statement is that it is singular "criterion"

Do you continue to pretend to be German, instead of the Englishman we all know you to be?

It sure is strange, she must have some real hang-ups about being white to do that. An extreme case of white guilt maybe?

But then America has this crazy rule where having just one black greatgreatgreatgreatgreat grandparent makes you fully black so who knows, she actually could be.

(June 12, 2015 at 2:14 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: It sure is strange, she must have some real hang-ups about being white to do that. An extreme case of white guilt maybe?

But then America has this crazy rule where having just one black greatgreatgreatgreatgreat grandparent makes you fully black so who knows, she actually could be.

Where would you draw the line? And how do you decide whether that great...grandparent was black?

I think self-identification is best, if you have a mixed (one white parent, one black parent) person who prefers to call themselves "black" or "white" for whatever reason, I think you should respect their agency in doing that. I also think "mixed" can still apply if you have like grandparents who are different.

It does come to point though where "mixed" becomes "white with a little POC ancestry". That would probably describe me, being someone who everyone would call "white" on face value, but I have some distant North African ancestry. I'm "white", it's absurd to call myself "mixed" when I'm walking around with pale skin, blue eyes, medium brown hair and no visible traits that suggest otherwise.

Also lots of people can trace their families back now, it's documented.