bnw… the ONLY States right that was so egregiously being violated that the South en masse decided that they had to SECEDE from the Union was Slavery.

This was NOT a matter of principle over a bunch of smaller matters. Heck, the Congress had already made in modern terms, ridiculous concessions toward the South, specifically the 3/5ths Compromise. They also agreed that new states would be admitted alternating free and slave in order to preserve the Union because and ONLY because… the ONLY issue SO important to the South that they would Secede…

WAS SLAVERY.

Really, it’s just not a matter of debate or opinion. It’s not for people to employ revisionist history or reframe it as if it’s still up for debate. The people AT THE TIME said loud and clear in unequivocal language that the SINGLE, SOLITARY reason for seceding was slavery. In their own words. In English.

That’s pretty much the end of the discussion. At this point, we can either take the Secessionists at their word… OR, call them liars and THEN prescribe other notions and motivations toward and onto them that do not align with their rather forceful and direct statements at the time.

I mean, that’s one way to go…

I’d rather just take them at their word. I mean, hundreds of thousands of Southerners died for those pretty direct words… one would think that a goodly number actually believed them. Oh, and the agrarian economy they relied on them pretty much demanded slavery considering they had no other way to achieve economies of scale like the North did with factories (not that they were bastions of worker rights, health, and safety)

Asking The Tampa Bay Times to get things right is a dubious proposition.

Politifact and Punditfact are almost laughable.

That said, I’m not surprised that CNN reached a sensational conclusion…

Well, the poll taken in WV in 2008 when it became clear that Barack Obama was cruising to a victory showed that 10% of West Virginians didn’t think that African Americans were American.

I mean, forget capable of serving as President. When this 10% saw a black person, they quite literally equated the skin color with being INCAPABLE of being an American. To them, America = White and this in a REAL and VISCERAL way.

And this was not West Virginia Republicans, this was writ large West Virginians. A nationwide poll found that number held up within the margin of error. It was lower, iirc, closer to 8% or 7%, but there’s a significant population who simply do NOT see black people as citizens. AT ALL.

Which would go far in explaining the blatant racism exhibited in this country since President Obama got elected. There is an element that simply cannot accept that black people are citizens, thus a black President means the country has been “taken over” and we’ve all heard this line before, they “have to take the country back”. Of course, right-wing opportunists have seized on this only too happy to play on that racial hatred. Rather than have a William F. Buckley who went after the anti-semites and ran the Birchers out of the party and into the shadows, all you have are political operatives who celebrate hatred and division for political gain.

It’s not THAT complicated.

Southern Pride? There are UMPTEEN different ways to demonstrate Southern Pride other than via the Stars and Bars and living here in the deep south, I see it all the time.

The Stars and Bars are a CHOICE, a conscious choice by a white person to say to society, “I know what this symbol means. I may say in mixed company that it’s all about heritage or I may not. But, gun to my head, truth be told, this is about me thinking white people are better. Not different, BETTER.”

I have YET to meet ONE person who flew the Stars and Bars via flag, hat or belt buckle who didn’t say or hint at that EXACT sentiment.

And trust me. Here in Central Florida…the folks flying the Stars and Bars… ain’t really capable of being…uh…complicated.

Best speech of his Presidency.

The fact that it was less than 10% politics and the rest was actual eulogy and policy was fantastic. Moreover, I was thrilled to hear him speak directly toward GRACE and ACTION.

Those are two things we’ve been missing in this country for awhile…

Sincerest condolences.

And you are right. We share very personal things here, both tragedies and triumphs, fears and frustrations, hopes and dreams.

It’s what makes this little corner of the digital universe a community, I think.

My son took me to see it as a Father’s Day present.

I really enjoyed it. Enjoyed the humor. Gladly looked past the bad science, which I did notice. Michael Crichton is missed. Badly.

That said, I also enjoyed the subversive nature of the very existence of the park and the Indominus Rex.

They have to say in a summer, Blockbuster, summer Action movie… “hey, you popcorn-munching movie-goers…you bore WAAAAY too easily. Even if we gave you REAL dinosaurs, in a few years, we’d have to create something SO DAMNED NASTY that it would make the T-Rex seem pedestrian in comparison. And that’s not us taking them for granted. Well, we do, but only because we only care about money. But YOU take just about EVERYTHING for granted until it’s LITERALLY eating your face off.”

It was unmistakenly cynical and subversive and I don’t think most of the movie watchers got it, but I got it loud and clear. Just like the crystal clear subversion lately in movies like WALL-E and a host of others.

I mean whether intentionally or unconsciously, when Spielberg is planting hugely cynical and subversive messages in movies… I dunno whether to be encouraged or really, really depressed that the consciousness about our apathy as opposed to just our apathy has gone mainstream.

The best way to deal with that crap is to eliminate the BATF and fold it into the FBI. There’s already so much damn overlap that it eliminates one entire agency, eliminates bureaucracy and puts agents where they actually work, in the field.

It saves tax dollars, shrinks government and eliminates jurisdictional and mission overlap.

What’s funny is that as soon as someone suggests that and suggests all the things that Republicans want… saving tax dollars, shrinking government and all that… they’d pitch a giant fit.

Why? Because it would eliminate some of the bottleneck, infighting and growth of the government that ALL politicians love (bigger government means MORE POWER and I don’t care what stripe a politician is, they ALL want more power… other than Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren…I can’t think of any others and no Republicans anymore that are modest servants. I mean Barry Goldwater might have been a LOT of things, but he didn’t strike me as someone who wanted power. He was an ideologue. Now, it’s all power mongers who use ideology to get there…. /sigh)

Anyway, fold the BATF into the FBI.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy..

Like in sex, the difference is informed consent.

With UFC and paid fighters like in Pride and other MMA venues, they train knowing that they are rules, risks and safety precautions in place. There is risk and risk mitigation.

Backyard brawls involve coercion based on desperation and manipulation as well as lack of information. It is the very definition of UNinformed consent. Moreover, rather than an agreed upon wage in the form of a clearly written contract, backyard brawls are rife with fighter exploitation.

I roll BJJ and very much enjoy watching MMA.

I won’t watch backyard brawls because it’s pretty much like non-consensual porn except substituting violence for sex. I don’t see much difference between these things and “bum fights” and other exploitative videos.

If that helps you draw a line… =)

Plus, a well executed rear naked choke with a locked body triangle is a thing of beauty all by itself

I realize that and I’m not accusing anyone of anything.

That said, the very discussion isn’t the same for everyone. And while the NRA will take anyone’s money, Wayne LaPierre won’t make any speeches about how every young black man needs to have a gun in his hand and it’s HIS RIGHT as an American.

Two men of fairly identical means can’t really have the same conversation about the 2nd Amendment. Not IN REALITY.

A white 35 year old dentist, father of two and homeowner can talk about gun ownership, open carry and concealed carry. He can engage in those activities at his leisure and publicly advocate for them as his disposition allows.

A black 35 year old dentist, father of two and homeowner can academically talk about gun ownership, open carry and concealed carry, but in the current police atmosphere, he’d be absolutely CRAZY to have a weapon on him. Black off-duty police officers have stated that they feel in danger more OFF the job than ON at times because they have to carry their weapon, but have nothing to identify themselves as a police officer and they KNOW that white police officers will NOT give them the B.O.D. that they are LEOs and properly carrying. A white person will be asked for a permit. A black person will be shot. The reality is really that stark.

So, it’s not really about the NRA so much as the realities and limits of the 2nd Amendment.

In a way, it’s pretty easy to agree that there ARE a group of people who are aggrieved, who are having their guns taken away…ACTIVELY by the government and who are being targeted…VIOLENTLY…by the government. So much of that rhetoric that sounds paranoid is in some neighborhoods if not true, pretty darn close.

But it’s not any white neighborhoods.

And you’re NOT going to hear anyone advocate for the mass arming of Black America as a solution that will solve America’s ills.

I’m certainly not saying that.

I’m saying it’s obvious that with respect to the 2nd Amendment, if there are people who’s 2nd Amendment rights are being violated, it’s in large part poor black men.

I’m also saying that rather than expand those rights to those men, I’d rather see intelligent reform put into place for ALL gun owners such that every gun owner can experience a more universal experience. Of course, a truly universal experience won’t be possible until a white person with a gun is seen as the same as a black person with a gun. Unfortunately, that’s just not the case now. Black men and children are killed by police simply being in possession of toy guns, often their deaths caught on camera and being given no opportunity to even surrender because black + gun = exigent threat to police. That’s just NOT the same math for whites to police. White + gun = ???

I mean what better example of that can be given than the biker shootout in Texas? Can you IMAGINE if those were two black biker clubs? You’d have seen APCs and full body armor all over the place. There WOULD have been dead bodies because the police would have entered behind a fusillade of bullets. And you wouldn’t have seen guys on their cellphones like they just got out of the school dance after they started arresting people.

John Oliver’s show is one of the best on TV.

How he framed this difficult issue was just amazing.

See, here’s the Conundrum with discussing the 2nd Amendment.

We understand that with every other Amendment that no Right in this country is absolute… For some that means everything EXCEPT gun ownership.

Sorry, but I’m here to say that even that has its limits.

So why can’t we be intelligent about where those limits should be and discuss them like rational human beings? Every time anyone brings up that the 2nd Amendment has limits, there’s a massive outcry like someone committed a tragedy…

There are rational limits that we need in this country and we need to be able to discuss them because people are circumventing the rules (the Gun Show loophole for one).

Also, with respect to “arming America” and rights… I’ve always found this dubious… because I’ve NEVER seen the NRA advertise to African Americans. My family back east is black. Used to have Ebony and Jet on the end table and watched Soul Train on Saturday morning with the family. Even in 2015, I’ve yet to see any minority outreach.

So where’s the principle? Surely, if there’s a group where the police and government have actually turned physical and violent against the populace, it’s against the usually poor, black populations of this country. If there EVER were a place where the rhetoric fits

So Why shouldn’t THIS group be solicited and a focus for the NRA and a focus for “2nd Amendment remedies”… well, in this case I mean holding a gun, not being the recipient of the bullets???

See, I don’t get that. If this were about the principle, the NRA and 2nd Amendment rights activists would have been soliciting that community since the passage of the civil rights act. “With your Freedom comes the Right to Own a Gun…” Frankly, I’m shocked they didn’t and wouldn’t do it. Money in the bank. Other than racism, why wouldn’t gun manufacturers want to sell more product?

I mean does black customers having guns alienate white customers? I don’t mean anecdotally, but en masse?

Is the discussion about gun rights purely a white discussion? (the police videos show in reality that to be true, just think about a black man shot trying to buy a TOY gun versus the white bikers involved with actual guns in a shootout sitting on their cellphones waiting on police to take statements…)

So when a person says, “I don’t want to give up my rights”, I kinda flinch.

Maybe they are conflating or inflating what the 2nd Amendment really is. As well, the Constitution is a living, breathing document. The founding fathers only including 9 Amendments with the 10th relegating all remaining powers to the states. There have been 17 additional Amendments (16 if you count the 21st being the repeal of the 18th which was the Prohibition on the sale and manufacturing of alcohol), so even the Founding Fathers left it to US to define how WE wanted the Constitution to be meaningful for us TODAY. That’s why they left us a mechanism to change it. Otherwise, they’d have said, “our wisdom is of the ages and this document shall not be amended or modified.” And that pretty much would have ended it short of crafting a new Constitution, I mean.

And who is “my”? Almost inevitably, that person is a white male. And, yet time and again, it has been demonstrated that the 2nd Amendment is not, will not and won’t be applied evenly, uniformly and fairly across the American demographic.

We have to be able to have an intelligent discussion at some point about the limits of the 2nd Amendment because it’s just neither tenable nor correct for us to exist with folks believing that it’s an absolute right (for some) that can never be changed even when in some cases 70+ percent or more of the population wants these changes made.

What I find kinda funny is that some of these changes are just so minor that most gun owners wouldn’t even notice them other than during a transaction

Apparently all it takes is 30 pieces of Copper to sell out the Apache.

These sad sack sellouts make me sick to my stomach. Gutless turds.

Bnw, I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, “the problem is that politics is the gamesmanship of policy. Thus, it has become pornography for polite society, a contentious matter that makes it all too easy to focus on the politics rather than the policy.”

I’m fairly well equipped to discuss economic policy with anyone who’d like to do so, short of someone who insists of delving into economic minutiae for the sake of being pedantic and obtuse. I’ve held my own with Ph.Ds and people who’ve worked at the Fed, for example.

Discussing economic policy, in this case Elizabeth Warren’s takes on things like Too Big to Fail, Corporate Fiscal Responsibility, defining Free Market as Fair Markets are all things that are pretty easy for me at least to get pretty deep into the weeds on. I understand her position AND I understand why she scares the shit out of the big money guys.

I’m also VERY clear that the politics of her situation has absolutely nothing…N.O.T.H.I.N.G. to do with her policy positions. I mean, of course, it has everything to do with it, but the politics surrounding her are about personality, not policy. The reality for her is that she has chosen among the richest, most powerful, most VESTED interests in the world with a parasitic hold on our treasury and thus, every government function. So, I’m not the least bit surprised that the attacks directed toward Elizabeth Warren are personal rather than directed at her policy stances.

The Banks currently borrow money from the government FOR FREE and lend it out on credit cards at 24.99% APR? More in some cases? Not including fees and charges? Even with losses on some accounts, that’s a helluva business. There’s a reason the banks have been showing record profits during this downturn. And they continue to have every reason to continue to be coy and come up with reasons to embrace uncertainty so that Congress and the President and Governors and State legislatures will bend over backwards for them to “convince” them that they NEED to start lending. And we all know an uncertain loan is a risky loan and those are more expensive…

So, I GET why they are coming after her, especially because she’s about the only person in all of Government with the ganas to so flagrantly speak the truth (the other would be Bernie Sanders) about the corruption and exploitative measures taken by the Big Banks.

Which just makes the attacks against her “politics as usual”.

Are they real? No.

When I evaluate a candidate, I listen to what they say and then evaluate what they’ve actually done. I don’t look at party, race, gender, religion or favorite team (although, to be quite honest… of all my biases, I probably would have a hard time dealing with a hardcore Pats fan… because if someone hardcore embraces a cheater…that SAYS something about that person that I’m just not down with…other than of course, unrepentant violent criminal, but you don’t see too many of those running for office these days…). What I look for are policy and principle. Plain and simple. Period. Alliteration and all.

So, does it make any difference if Elizabeth Warren makes a statement that part of her heritage is Native American? No. As long as she is not “self-assigning” as Native-American and trying to essentially do what she’s been accused of doing, of course not. Is it a problem if she’s wrong? No. LOTS of people have been wrong and for reasons like I’ve mentioned. This is common and it is an inherent issue with the FACT that the US engaged in genocide against the indigenous peoples of this land and has broken (most) every treaty it made with Native peoples here AND abroad.

Would I feel ANY different if Scott Brown had mentioned that he were part Native American? Not at all. Frankly, the two most common things I hear these days when someone describes their heritage is “I’m part Irish” and “I’m part Native American”. Now… I BELIEVE the Irish part. I really do. When it comes to Native heritage, I think some folks are just misinformed by family who’ve gotten bad oral information. Oral traditions aren’t what they used to be. That said, unless someone is trying to falsely stake some authoritative claim based on this assertion of heritage or claim a right or restricted privilege, then it really doesn’t bother me.

The bigger and real issue is that as a society we value politics over policy and that’s just bad for everyone. We see the destructive nature of that more and more every day.

Oh, and by way of PS, people should be careful with the party labels with a few of the folks in Washington on both sides. It was Elizabeth Warren who led the charge in defeating TPP, much to President Obama’s chagrin. Which is a damn good thing because part of TPP and TiSA are reciprocal agreements that companies can sue countries for losses if rules in one country cause losses in another. Now, in the media, people have focused on environmental and wage concerns and those are big deals, but let’s go even more extreme. In one instance, let’s say a multinational has access to slave labor and wants to relocate a division to the US using that same slave labor. They’re even willing to relocate the slaves and build housing and everything. Under current US law, that’d be ridiculous. Under TPP and TiSA, that company could sue and that agreement would supercede our laws. So, just like most companies incorporate in Delaware, companies could import slavery.

In another VERY REAL and extreme case, a company could move your data to a country with few data restrictions. They could then either then sell your data, your metadata and or your transaction data and there’s nothing you could do about it. Worse, a company could outright deny they did it while reaping huge profits through a foreign subsidiary and it would all be totally legal under TPP and TiSA. And Elizabeth Warren has been one of the FEW people in Congress to stand up to President Obama against this and rallied support to stop it. If NAFTA was bad… and even NAFTA’s early supporters have acknowledged that NAFTA hasn’t done what was promised…then TPP is NAFTA on megadoses of steroids with a roofie at the bottom of the glass.

Well, not to quibble…but I’m gonna a little.

Elizabeth Warren…I think that’s to whom you’re referring, has a common issue… because of the rampant racism and outright genocide of native peoples in this country including the various schools where children were forbidden to speak their native tongues and had their hair cut, forced to convert to Christianity, etc… many just don’t KNOW their heritage.

In many instances, they know OF their heritage and it remains an oral tradition.

Is it accurate in all cases? No. Especially once “the system” started writing things down and registering all the Native Americans, it has only been recently that people have WANTED to go back and GET registered. For many decades, people have not gotten registered unless they were born on a reservation because of the stigma.

So, some of that is a function of our national history.

Now, is it possible that she’s not Native American? I suppose. It’s possible that her parents told her something incorrect or that there was a misunderstanding at some point and something got communicated improperly.

However, and this is important… at NO POINT has Elizabeth Warren ever tried to pass for a Native American, tried to access Native American benefits (not that I’m aware of, anyway) or made claims to speak for Native peoples or even tried to claim any access to the Native American experience. The ONLY thing I’ve heard her say (and I’ve listened to her a LOT because I enjoy listening to the only person in Washington with the balls to speak truth to the banks in plain, simple English) is that she believed that she had Native American heritage.

How that makes Elizabeth Warren MORE of a fraud than Rachel Dolezal who changed her race and lied about her family as a means to create legitimacy for working for the NAACP (which to my mind is pretty damned racist. It means SHE thinks you have to be black to work on behalf of the advancement of black people so she essentially went 21st Century blackface… which is pretty fucked up, imho)

One not about Ms. Dolezal. I have no qualms with her change of appearance, per se. People try to fit in all the time and in all sorts of ways. It may have been a little skeezy if she was trying to pass as black, but never actually said she was black to anyone and always told everyone she was white and just got the benefit of the doubt from people because of her appearance. Like I said, cultural assignations and all. But, living within a culture that people are born into means being inextricably part of it. Rachel Dolezal can’t ever be black because she could always walk away. Heck, a dye job and a lighter base concealer and she could do it in a day.

I guess what I’m saying is that Rachel Dolezal purposefully sought to deceive, the essence and definition of fraud.

Nothing about Elizabeth Warren’s references to her Native America heritage sought to deceive. People find out they are incorrect about their heritage until the day they die and we find out things about their heritage long after they are gone. If she’s wrong, it should be the end of it.

In some ways, it’s pretty complex.

I’m mixed. I pass as white, especially lately because of my medical situation over the last 20 years, but this issue has been near and dear to my heart.

I’ll try to keep my take brief

1) True: Race isn’t genetic. There’s not much to add to that. If it were, organ donation would be an entirely different function than it is right now (and there wouldn’t be a worldwide organ trade…).

2) Race is MORE than just cultural. There are physical characteristics that are intrinsic to the experience, that create exigencies, both create and remove possibilities and fundamentally CHANGE the human experience because those physical characteristics are viewed differently in a cultural AND social context. I am NOT speaking about Eugenics or any other pseudo-science that tries to establish a scientific basis for “race”. Rather, I’m speaking of race as a social and cultural construct based on physical traits and genealogy. Which may sound bad, but is pretty typical. “I’m half <insert “race” here> and one quarter…” How does anyone get to being Scandanavian? Chinese? Persian? Generally, one is born into these cultures. There has been a movement among adopted people to essentially adopt the culture of the parents if they choose. That’s an ongoing debate that I’m not going to get into, just wanted to acknowledge it. And, of course, there are exceptions to all this…which seems to be the focus now.

3) Race is for the most part assigned. THIS is controversial, but all too true. Many have said in the media that “race is self-identified”. I disagree as I’ll explain later. As a cultural and social phenomena, it’s been a real issue among light skinned African Americans and mixed race Americans who can “pass” for White to be in flux. Some have moved, disavowed family including darker siblings and parents and chosen to pass for white for the many reasons that might be desirable. Others have embraced their “blackness” and struggled with being “black enough” which a different facet of this same discussion. I can see how one can embrace who they ARE. A dark-skinned Sri Lankan may correct someone and say, “No. I’m not black. I’m Sri Lankan,” because black in the Unites States is a euphemism for an entirely different social and cultural grouping. But the key is the really crappy nature of this… externality. Social and cultural assignment is almost by nature external and as such, it’s how others see us. It’s one reason why “inclusive cultures” or cultures without assignment are so sought after by some.

4) There is just NO comparison to the Transgender community. Plain and simple, a transgender person is living a physically and cognitively disparate reality. Their gender doesn’t match their body. Moreover, their sexuality may OR MAY NOT match their cognitive reality. In other words, a transgender person may understand that they are a male. This person would by definition have a female body. However, if this transgender person is heterosexual, the attraction would be for women. That would put the person in what from the outside looks like a lesbian relationship, but is actually a straight relationship between a woman and a transgender person (obviously the physicality complicates things). This has nothing to do with anyone assigning anything. If a transgender person were teleported to another galaxy, none of their realities changes.

So, here’s my take in a nutshell. And this is brief for me as you all know.

I think the woman in question has issues that I won’t even try to deal with.

I think her individual issues cloud the ability to deal with the larger issues. If one wants to talk about her, it’s important to narrow any discussion to JUST her situation and restrict that discussion to her particular situation.

I think the genetics, eugenics, science and pseudo-science crowd should seriously shut the fuck up. If Eugenics didn’t die after WWII, we sure don’t need it sparking back up now because someone can read a few scanned papers on Wikipedia.

I think that because we try to assign mixed race people as ONE race rather than allowing mixed race people to be mixed, there are going to be problems. I’ve life experience in this area and I REALLY wish we could address mixed race people as MIXED while at the same time allowing for INCLUSION into their “component communities”. Thus, like me, I’m part White, a quarter Black and some part Native American. I see this not only for me, but for my kids. My youngest daughter clearly LOOKS mixed and she isn’t considered white by most people. My eldest daughter looks white and is considered white. My daughter doesn’t really have the choice to just go out into the world and say “I’m white. I’m black. I’m Native American. I embrace all of these,” and have them embrace her back. Well, the Native culture would and does. The black community is a mixed bag. It’s…complicated. The white community? Not so much. It’s pretty binary, a person either IS or IS NOT.

Thus, because of this, because of the mixed race dilemma which shouldn’t be the entirety of this discussion or define this issue, there is no definite answer. Well, there is and it’s inclusion… but that’s of those who are mixed and essentially create difficulties and exceptions for the basic assignations for the various cultures.

I do think the construct of race is more than just culture. The various common physical traits, whatever they may be, are an inextricable PART of that culture. Moreover, whether positively or negatively (usually negatively…let’s be honest), cultural and social assignations are NOT a matter of checking a box. Take our President. He’s half white. He could choose to say he’s white. He was raised by his white mother in Kansas along with his white grandparents. However, the social norm would be to say that he “looks” black, thus unless there’s a correction, he’s black. The President could check all the boxes he wanted, but it would be folly to seriously entertain him “embracing his Whiteness”.

Yes, there is a part of this that’s exclusionary with respect to white and it frustrates me to no end. As in the story posted above, there’s a purity aspect that creates a “white or other” rather than “white AND other” mentality.

For most of my life, I’ve struggled with self-assigning only to be rudely informed externally that, NO…., the outside… was taking care of that. As I’ve shared before, I’ve never “felt white” because I could see what the white experience looked like and got to experience most of it, but didn’t feel it internally. Plus, I’ve had store detectives follow me and people ask me in a tone that wasn’t positive, “you’re part black, aren’t you?” So, I’ve struggled with this issue my whole life.

I will use this example as a counter for those positing that folks can self-assign. Young African-American males absolutely can NOT self-assign as young white men. If “race” were TRULY something that could be self-assigned, young black males in poor neighborhoods all across this country could avoid profiling from police departments by self-assigning as white if they chose. They could improve their credit (the racist polices of the banking industry is pretty well known. My wife has a higher credit score than I do because I check “other” for my race and she checks “white” even though she has no income), they could make it easier to obtain housing and to get into college.

NONE of these things are options. Moreover, when the police looks at a young heavily melanin enriched American male… he’s likely profiled as being black, dangerous and a criminal. Thus, the farther this discussion goes from being academic and enters into the real world… to getting a home loan (a bank could sue you for checking the wrong box…try making that self-assignation argument in court. I wouldn’t), to dealing with law enforcement (the police department sure doesn’t seem to take much stock in self-assigning), to dealing with the job market… we see that self-assigning is ONLY about the meaningless gesture of checking the box. If it weren’t, a person could just say, “I’m white! Don’t shoot!” and as blatantly racist as that is, they could probably save their life in certain situations where especially black men are killed without a second thought. Buying a toy gun comes to mind…

So that’s it. We KNOW that race is a construct. And? Short of homogenization which I think would be horrible in just about every way possible, we’re left with all of these different cultures masquerading as “races”.

Ultimately, the way out will be when we learn that there’s ONE human race and that there are thousands of cultures that are different. Some are born into, some are entered into and hopefully we get to the point where none are assigned based on physical features.

By way of exception, here’s Josh Blue, comedian and African American. (American citizen born and raised a good chunk in Africa)

Here’s Barack Obama, President and of mixed race (white mother and black father)

Josh Blue jokes about being an African American. And while technically he IS an African American in the literal sense, he’s not part of that culture. He’s a damned funny comedian and his take on it is hysterical and I’d recommend a google of him because it’s worth it.

The only thing about this that really frustrates me is that the self-assigning advocates are going to great lengths to not justify Rachel Dolezal’s deception, but to somehow validate the question she raises. Bullshit. If this is really about the work she was doing, was it not possible to do it in her former guise? Could she not do it without the subterfuge? If not, then that’s an issue for the NAACP and the African American community to look at. I know it’s not true as an absolute because my grandfather who’s Native American and Pennsylvania Dutch was one of 14 founding members of the Easton, PA chapter of the NAACP in 1942 and the only “white” man of those founders. So, the NAACP is not and has not been an exclusively black organization. I don’t believe it has become LESS inclusive since 1942.

So, again the question, is it about the work or the guise? Because if it was about the work, my grandfather did work for the NAACP as a white man in 1942 married to a black woman raising mixed kids. He went on to work quite a long time for Bethlehem Steel, not exactly a bastion of tolerance. She could have done the work she did as she was. Moreover, I don’t see any serious effort to discredit her work (then again, I haven’t gone looking for it). I see her deception being called out. Thus, if it’s about the guise, then deception to be part of any community or culture is just false. She can say she’s black all the live long day, but at the end of the day, she can go back to being white and check another box.