Reply #83: It would really help if you made a point, rather than just generalizations. [View All]

[LooseWilly]

I'm going to guess that you consider this a point " In America, if you have any perceptible black heritage, you are considered black. That is the perception and law for a couple hundred years."

In fact, that is an assertion. It is just you saying something. Tell me, from your vast studies, who says "In America, if you have any perceptible black heritage, you are considered black." What is the "factual knowledge" that you are going to provide to support this point? Or, are you relying on "projection of", well obviously someone else's "individual experience onto the world at large" to support this point? "That is the perception and law for a couple hundred years." Again, another generalized assertion.

And, while I'm at it, "You clearly didn't learn much from your step-father, or anything at UC Berkeley." is... once again, just an assertion.

If you are going to claim education on the subject, please display some sign of it. If your African American wife and black daughter are going to be used to justify unfounded, generalized assertions, then my black step father justifies me simply answering that you are, in fact, the one who is wrong.

The fact is, considerations of "black" have varied, both in law and in popular perception, depending upon place and time. You obviously have found a definition that you like, a variation on the "one drop rule" apparently... and you scoff at the notion of anyone having any say in defining themselves as far as "race" is concerned. You are comfortable with "the binary culture of long years of institutionalized slavery." So be it.

It is rather interesting to see, however, that you have so internalized that "binary culture" that you can casually dismiss the "otherness" of immigrants in US culture, as you did back in post #76. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=258&topic_id=7259&mesg_id=7524). Your posts, in fact, consistently sound like you posit a binary notion of "black" and "not black"... and somehow treat all "not black" as being de facto "white"... and then proceed to dismiss all "not black" issues to a convenient "irrelevance".

That sounds like a rather interesting twist on "white privilege", when performed by a WASP with a "conflict of interest".