His skin color went from black to white. His ethnicity did not go from African American to Caucasian.
People in the U.S. have a weird issue with conflating skin color with ethnicity. Not saying you in particular do, mind you, so my apologies if that comes across as a personal attack as it is not intended that way.
Genealogically he was certainly still African American. Using skin color as the primary means of judging ethnicity is not only unreliable, but also somewhat harmful on a sociological level.
Genealogically he was certainly still African American. Using skin color as the primary means of judging ethnicity is not only unreliable, but also somewhat harmful on a sociological level.
You are failing to distinguish between 'race'--biological--and 'ethnicity'--cultural.
No one is arguing that you can change races; the argument is: why can you change genders, but not ethnicities when both of which are cultural ideologies?
You are failing to distinguish between 'race'--biological--and 'ethnicity'--cultural.
That's because ethnicity itself is not consistent. Some definitions include genealogy, some don't. I have always found the ones that include culture as well as genealogy to be a more complete definition of it.
Maybe we should make it so that you have to be accepted by the community in question before you can identify with it. Women would get to vote whether or not to let Bruce Jenner into their little club and let him take home the woman of the year award. Similarly, blacks would get a chance to vote whether or not to accept Rachel Dolezal as a sister.
Well, there you go. The meaning I was going after was the sociological characteristics. Now what? What word should I have used to connote "sociological characteristics?"
Why is it that Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner can keep his/her penis and win a "woman of the year" award by identifying as a woman but Rachel Dolezal is not allowed to identify as a black woman and keep her job?
Out of all black candidates she rose to that position. Her black peers and black superiors recognized her competence, effectiveness, dedication, and professionalism over all other black candidates and promoted her to her position. Until they found out she was white and then they fired her. Imagine if the organization had been white and she was a light skinned black and then she was fired when they found out she was black.
Why isn't there a group of people shouting, "white lives matter?"
Have you ever been to Spokane? I assure you, the number of Black candidates isn't that large there. African Americans don't even make up 2% of the population there.
Why isn't there a group of people shouting, "white lives matter?"
Because nobody has been behaving as if they don't, therefore nobody needs to remind everybody that they do.
Because there isn't a singular organization or set of rules that determines who gets what?
You are asking why one person can make one decision and get one award from one organization, while a different person can make a different decision and get a different reaction from a different organization. There's exceptionally little linking the two.
Personally, I find the "[Blank] of the Year" awards to be utterly vapid and unworthy of consideration. As for Rachel Dolezal, I think you can probably recognize that an organization designed around fighting for and protecting the interest of a particular racial group won't react well to an individual claiming a shared genealogy when they have none. If she was honest about her racial background from the start, I am willing to bet the NAACP would have reacted far more positively. Hell, she might have been lauded as some kind of symbol.
I think that might be a half truth? So speaking about ethnicity, why wouldnt one be able to change? Knowing that, "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a socially defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience".
Example:
A person who was born in the city (identified themselves as "city slickers"), joined the military, got out and moved to the mountains somewhere. They (and others they know) would identify themselves as "mountain men" or similar terminology.
Wouldn't this be an example of changing ethnically?
Rachel was not allowed to change. She is biologically white according to her DNA but she identified herself as black and was able to get a good paying job helping blacks until it was discovered that she was white. Then she was fired.
Hold on hold on. I didn't see the link posted. Been using my phone. If it's another weak article based on personal opinion, I will come back to and be short with my response.)..
Michael Jackson became white. Why can't she become black? I mean, a light skin black but black just the same. Hell, she could have been made into an honorary black. Instead, they just fired her black ass!!!
It's not about color with that terminology, it's the culture you were raised in. It's a hateful word and shouldn't be supported period, regardless of who uses it. In my opinion.