Racial Classification at Birth

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

For decades, the CDC has collaborated with the states to collect data on births in the United States. Among the data collected is "race."

Let's see if you can figure out what the rule was before 1989. If a child had an Asian father and and a black mother, the child was tabulated as being Asian. So let's say a child had a white father and a black mother. Well, the rule must be it goes by the father's race, right? Wrong.

Until 1989, it did go by the father's race, but only if both parents were not white. If one parent was white and the other non-white, the child was tabulated by the race of the non-white parent. I can't think of any good reason for this rule other than the racist assumption that the product of interracial marriage may not be deemed white, but is automatically a member of his non-white parent's group.

Since 1989, the rule has been that a baby's race is tabulated according to the mother's race, regardless of the father's race. This information is retained by the government, but modern birth certificates do not list the child's race. A proposal to do so was shot down a while back, primarily on the theory that the parents may tell authorities that their child is race "X", but as an adult the child might choose to identify otherwise.

NEXT: ‘Limited, Arbitrary, and Unsystematic:’ Flawed Federal Dietary Report Targets Alcohol

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. (h/t the Digital History textbook at the University of Houston https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=71)

    William Waller Hening, Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia (Richmond: Samuel Pleasants, 1809-1823), II, 170, 260, 266, 270, wherein we read:

    December 1662

    Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children got by any Englishman upon a Negro woman should be slave or free, be it therefore enacted and declared by this present Grand Assembly, that all children born in this country shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother; and that if any Christian shall commit fornication with a Negro man or woman, he or she so offending shall pay double the fines imposed by the former act.

    1. Pay double the fine for fornication — which itself was a criminal offense at the time, and I have no doubt enforced.
      There were many pregnant brides, but fornication was a crime.

      1. Evidence of most offenses being hard to come by (what with no victim to complain) I imagine the enforcement was rare.

        1. A child being born 7 or sometimes 6 months after a marriage was not discussed in polite society.

  2. Since we need to cut government spending to pay for all the mistakes of the Communist Chinese Virus response, why not stop collecting ALL data on race, and treat all citizens the same in all circumstances?

    1. As the 14th Amendment requires.

    2. No more special privilege for people who claim to be religious?

      1. Yeah, damn liberals and their special privilege for people who claim to be religious.

  3. Since now assignment of sex at birth is a no-go, why is race which has little if any genetic meaning avlid to put on any government issued document.

    As we sow, so shall we reap.

  4. In Massachusetts, should I so desire, I can get a replacement birth certificate saying I was born a girl.

    So why can’t I get a replacement birth certificate saying I was born Black?

    1. Sigh. Wrong, again.
      Are you trying for some kind of record?

      1. The score: two assertions, no citations.

      2. How difficult is it to find this?

        “MGL c.46 § 13(e) Amending a birth certificate
        A person who has completed medical intervention for the purpose of permanent sex reassignment may have their birth record amended. As of July 1, 2015, surgery is no longer a prerequisite to getting a new birth certificate.

        https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-law-about-gender-identity-or-expression

        ==================================
        46 MHL 13 (e)(1) If a person has completed medical intervention for the purpose of permanent sex reassignment, the birth record of that person shall be amended to permanently and accurately reflect the reassigned sex if the following documents have been received by the state registrar or town clerk:

        (i) an affidavit executed by the person to whom the record relates or by the parent or guardian if such person is a minor indicating the individual’s sex; and

        (ii) a physician’s notarized statement that the person has completed medical intervention, appropriate for that individual, for the purpose of permanent sex reassignment and is not of the sex recorded on the record.

        (2) The affiant shall furnish a certified copy of the legal change of name if the affiant is seeking a birth record with the legal change of name instead of the name as appearing on the birth record prior to the amendment.

        1. Yes, but you said ‘you’ could get ‘your’ cert changed, which is patently false.

          1. No it isn’t. I get a psychologist to say I think I am a girl and sign the paperwork.

                1. Liquor ID?

                  Sorry, I’m from Missouri. WTF is a Liquor ID? I get liquor by raising an eyebrow at the cashier when it asks for ID here.

                  1. Ed likes to hang out on campus. Apparently there’s a bit of underage drinking associated with college campuses.

                    1. In all honesty, I don’t know the difference between a liquor ID and a State ID as the RMV apparently now issues both, but “Liquor” is another word for “Alcoholic Beverage”, which is sold in a “Package Store.”

                      Don’t ask me why….

                    2. In Oregon, which is where I lived when I did most of my drinking, “Liquor” is sold in a “liquor store”, and they’re all owned by the state. If you want to go into a “liquor store” and buy some “liquor”, the state requires you to get a state-issued ID card (or a driving license, also available from the state).

            1. “No it isn’t. I get a psychologist to say I think I am a girl and sign the paperwork.”

              That explains your fascination with gay porn.

              1. Why are you trying to insult him by insinuating he is gay?

                What is it about being gay that you find so revolting that you use it as an insult?

                I mean, I know why many people do, but you do you?

                1. He specified that he wanted to play a gay porno MPEG file in a classroom.

                  Later on, he suggested that he might be a NAMBLA member.

                  Thought he was being clever, but (it turns out ) he is not clever at all.

                  1. 1: I said “porn” not “gay porno.”
                    2: I also said why I wanted to, and it wasn’t to watch it.
                    3: It honestly never occurred to me to play gay porn.
                    4: I suggested that someone else was a NAMBLA member.

                    5: Your fascination with homosexuality indicates your own homophobia.

                    1. “1: I said “porn” not “gay porno.””

                      You went on the specify that it was gay porn. Because you thought that made it extra interesting to outside activists who were going sue the school to death on your behalf.

                      “2: I also said why I wanted to, and it wasn’t to watch it.

                      Becuase you couldn’t keep up with the class, and because it is forbidden. Which makes your later upgrade to child porn predictable.

                      “3: It honestly never occurred to me to play gay porn.”

                      I believe you when you say you weren’t thinking and weren’t paying attention to your own scribbling during that whole event, where you insisted that the Internet service at a university was both slow and fast

                      “4: I suggested that someone else was a NAMBLA member.”
                      No, you didn’t.

                      “5: Your fascination with homosexuality indicates your own homophobia.”

                      that “fascination with homosexuality” is describing your own comments to you. What does that indicate?

                  2. I know why I associate gay with NAMBLA, after all it was founded by a gay activist, but why do you?

                    1. I pronounce Ed and Sam . . . Officially Not Gay.

                      (The relevant minute begins at roughly 4:00)

                      Let’s all join in congratulating Ed and Sam! What a cute conservative couple.

                    2. What is it about homosexuality that you find that makes it so vulgar that you use it as an insult? Is it the 4 S’ of homosexuality; Sadness, STDs, Sodomy, and Shame?

                    3. what is it about being declared officially not gay that is offending you?

                    4. “I know why I associate gay with NAMBLA, after all it was founded by a gay activist, but why do you?”

                      The short, easy answer is to point out that I didn’t.

                    5. “He specified that he wanted to play a gay porno MPEG file in a classroom.

                      Later on, he suggested that he might be a NAMBLA member.”

                      Thats you recasting things he didn’t say to smear him as a gay NAMBLA member (adjective not needed, I know)

                    6. “Thats you recasting things he didn’t say to smear him as a gay NAMBLA member ”

                      No, that’s me accurately reporting on what he had to say in a couple of different topics. Then, YOU started connecting the dots about what HE had to say.

                2. “Why are you trying to insult him by insinuating he is gay?”

                  You’re not good at reading are you? He says he(?) thinks he’s a girl.

                  1. That’s not what I wrote….

                    1. Here, let me quote you directly via cut & paste

                      ” I think I am a girl”
                      –Dr. Ed 2, September.5.2020 at 11:52 pm

                    2. I get a psychologist to say I think I am a girl and [to] sign the paperwork.

                      There’s a few words missing in your quotation.

                      And who says that I don’t also tell the voodoo scientist that I also think that I am a lesbian?

                      Haven’t you heard of “Male Lesbians”?

                      Rush Limbough had great fun with this 25 years ago when the world was a somewhat saner place.

            2. Well, go for it. Get some Project Veritas cash, find a psychologist who’ll participate in fraud, and blow the lid off this scam. Who knows how many people have been ripping off the good people of Massachusetts by fraudulently changing their birth certificates. Hundreds? Thousands? Be the hero these times need. Be. The. Hero.

              1. The psychologists all believe this fraud.

                And watch the issue of the Female athletes in Connecticut — that’s likely going to SCOTUS.

                1. It’s even easier, then, if “all” the psychologists are in on it because you won’t need an accomplice. Take them all down. Don’t just scream into the wind. Be. The. Hero.

          2. We should be grateful Dr. Ed’s apparent willingness to defraud the government hasn’t driven him to violence. A man can only take so much.

            1. His gender identity is a belief. An unibservable, unverifiable, unquestionable thing that allegedly meets the criteria for science in progressive-land.

              Its as real as he says it is. No refutation possible.

              1. DNA notwithstanding…..

                Sex is scientific — X or Y — while race is a social construct.
                That’s why I think the whole thing is a charade.

                1. if biological sex is assigned at birth then so is every other immutable characteristic and mutable characteristic.

                  1. Your parents, and those discount homeschooling outlines, failed you, Sam Gompers.

                    That is not nearly enough to excuse the entirety of your dysfunction, but it is a mitigating factor.

                    1. Does bioligical sex get assigned at birth or is it merely observed? Huh, KKKirkland?

                2. “Sex is scientific — X or Y”

                  F or science, to go with your previously earned F’s in law and technology studies.

                  Sex is scientific (XX, XY, or other) Hint: when you don’t have even the right number of choices, your list is wrong.

                  1. How are doctors assigning XX or YY or other to these babies, and what were they before assignment?

                    1. “How are doctors assigning XX or YY or other to these babies, and what were they before assignment?”

                      By DNA analysis. Human beings have several possibilities for their 23rd chromosome pair, including XX, XY, and other fun combinations like XXY.

                      You are the only known YY which would indicate that you are the result of sex between two male (XY) persons. You also receive an F for science this semester.

                    2. When a doctor assigns biological sex, they are doing DNA tests?

                    3. “When a doctor assigns biological sex, they are doing DNA tests?”

                      Does being that stupid make your head hurt?

                    4. Doctor’s are currently assigning biological sex at birth. Biological sex is mostly XX or YY.

                      When Doctor’s are assigning biological sex, aka XX or YY, how are they doing that? And what are the babies before the assignment is made?

    2. “So why can’t I get a replacement birth certificate saying I was born Black?”

      Let me guess… you were washed enough times that the color faded?

      1. Michael Jackson disorder…. 🙂

        1. It’s called vitiligo, it doesn’t just affect African Americans. Also Michael Jackson isn’t the only famous person to suffer from it.

          https://vrfoundation.org/famous

          1. The skin peels didn’t have anything to do with it?

  5. Since 1989, the rule has been that a baby’s race is tabulating according to the mother’s race, regardless of the father’s race

    So Barack Obama is a white man, then?

    1. Obama was born before 1989, but then you knew that.

      I makes a sort of sense to go by the mothers race since so many children are born outside marriage.

      1. We’ve always known that Obama was white.

        1. What we’ve always known is that some people delight in trying to discredit Obama as white in one breath and black in the next.

          1. Where “some people” = conservative bigots = Volokh Conspiracy fans.

      2. ” so many children are born outside marriage.”
        Being born to a married woman does not prove anything about he race of the father. Motherhood is a fact. Fatherhood is an opinion.

  6. DB–this is actually an interesting read. But dude, you can’t have as many typos as you got paragraphs. /editpost

    1. You’re behind the times, N/A. The Volokh Conspirators don’t flatter the “elites” . . . they signal solidarity with the Trump-Republican-conservative electoral coalition by rejecting standard English. Capitalization, spelling, grammar . . . it’s a free-for-all, signaling that conservatives love liberty and that no one can tell them what to do.

  7. In a country with the 15th Amendment and a 14th Amendment, it is illegal for any government at any level to inquire about the race of a person on any government form.

    1. Neither the 15th Amendment nor the 14th Amendment — nor the 13th, 12th, 11th, 10th… and so on, down to 1st — make it illegal for any government at any level to inquire about the race of a person on any government form.

      1. Quit nitpicking. Illegal, cuck, what’s the difference?

        1. If you don’t care what kind of stupid you’re being, that doesn’t imply that nobody else can care what kind of stupid you’re being.

          1. Woosh (I think. If not, I’m the woosh and also sorry.)

  8. I hate to say it but unless there a scientific test you really only know for sure the genetics of the parent that gave birth. Who knows who donated the sperm? So it kinda makes sense.

    1. Maybe for one generation. But:

      Woman of race X has daughter with man of race Y.
      Daughter is race X, has daughter with different man of race Y.
      Granddaughter is race X, has daughter with different man of race Y.
      Greatgranddaughter is race X, has daughter with different man of race Y.

      and so on. Eventually being 1/1024 race X and 1023/1024 race Y makes you still race X.

      I’d have to think about the math a little … does everyone in the population end up race X after a while?

      1. Yes. The modern homo sapiens sapiens species has almost completely excised homo sapiens neandertalensis. The subspecies is effectively extinct.

    2. Without a scientific test, how do you know the genetics of the parent who gave birth?

  9. Let’s say a child is deemed to be non-white. What happens when they’re an adult and ostensibly free individual they decide they consider themselves to be white? How now brown cow?

    1. ” What happens when they’re an adult and ostensibly free individual they decide they consider themselves to be white?”

      It used to matter, and people worried about whether or not the horrible misbred partially non-white children might “pass” as white.

  10. Speaking of race Trump has directed the OMB to ban critical race theory or white privilege theory training in the federal government. “Any training or propaganda” that “teaches or suggests…the United States is inherently racist or evil…or any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil” is now forbidden.

    It’s about time.

    1. Cancel culture is good now.

      1. Thats not Cancel Culture.

      2. ?? How’s that cancel culture?

      3. For the clingers, ‘cancel culture’ was even better yesterday when Pres. Trump stated that a Fox reporter should be fired for reporting that she had confirmed important elements of The Atlantic’s ‘Trump demeans soldiers, especially the fallen’ article.

        That won’t stop the Volokh Conspiracy’s clingers from lathering up their followers with ‘cancel culture’ outrage, of course. Ideally, that will involve an anecdote from a strong, liberal-libertarian educational institution that doesn’t hire enough movement conservatives to satisfy right-wing law professors.

      4. What’s that got to do with cancel culture?

        I don’t see anything in the guidance letter that says individuals or private corporations should or shouldn’t go thru such training, or says someone should be fired for their beliefs. It just says the federal government won’t use or pay for such training for federal workers.

      5. Getting rid of points of view you don’t favor.

        How is this at all different from what dumb woke people do about professors who like the Bell Curve or whatever?

        1. It would be “cancel culture” if there were additional regulations requiring:

          1) the termination of anyone who in the past had done something that would have violated the new regs;

          2) that anyone terminated for violating these regs (including 1 above) receive a negative recommendation for any future employment (i.e. like a dishonorable discharge from the military); and

          3) that nobody who has ever espoused a view that would violate these regs will be eligible for employment by the Federal government.

          I am not saying that the proposed regs are wise (or legal). Even if I am sympathetic to the message, they seem awfully vague and overbroad — but the bigger risk with “cancel culture” is the kind of ex post facto treatment and completely disproportionate punishment I describe above.

        2. “Getting rid of points of view you don’t favor.”

          Wow. No, nobody is “getting rid” of any point of view, they are simply not providing federally funded training for this particular point of view. And rightly so, because it’s stupid, and we don’t want spend money teaching people stupid things.

          “How is this at all different from what dumb woke people do about professors who like the Bell Curve or whatever?”

          We certainly shouldn’t pay for race-relations training that features the bell curve, either.

        3. All right, so be it, cancel culture under your definition can be a good thing after all, if it’s broad enough to mean stopping racist propaganda.

          I’m so glad to hear cancel culture can be useful for something!

          1. When Sarcastro changes the channel when Fox News is on, that’s cancel culture!

            1. OK, then tell me; how do you define cancel culture?

              1. Using a tv show as an example.

                Voting With Your Wallet is turning off a tv show you don’t agree with.

                Boycotting is convincing others to turn off a tv show you don’t agree with.

                Cancel Culture is threatening others with similar social sanctions if they don’t turn off a tv show you don’t agree with and/or threatening platforms/advertisers with similar social sanctions if they don’t prevent others from watching a tv show you don’t agree with.

                1. The OMB ban is the government threatening academics with sanction if they teach stuff the Trump admin doesn’t agree with.

                  1. Uh, no. The OMB ban is simply the executive branch declining to pay consultants to teach employees of, say, FEMA, a bunch of bullshit. Why do you want the government to pay for bullshit, Sarcastro?

                    1. Academic freedom at public institutions isn’t a thing, eh? Might as well treat universities just like a government agency?!

                    2. I’m not sure what you think the OMB order has to do with academic freedom.

                  2. As Trump is the head of the executive it would be closer to the Voting With Your Wallet category, as the executive is just no longer purchasing a product themselves. Instead of Boycotting by convincing other seperate entities to stop purchasing a product or engaging in cancel culture by preventing other separate entities from purchasing a product.

                    But realistically “Voting With Your Wallet”, “Boycotting”, and “Cancel Culture” are about what actions people take to influence an institution not really what actions the institution itself takes. If the firing/hiring decision is yours to make, firing your employee for being conservative isn’t really cancel culture. Another employee trying to convince you to fire a conservative employee would be, whether or not you do it.

                    The line gets a little fuzzier when one institution tries to influence a fully separate institution (The CEO telling a marketing department to knock something off doesn’t count, because the marketing department is subservient within the same institution). Most of the time, the federal government is so big of a customer that nearly everything it does would be closer to “Voting With Your Wallet” than any of the other categories, but like I said the line gets fuzzier with institutions trying to influence other institutions.

                    1. Sure – Trump has the right, as do all the liberals calling to cancel people

                      I’m still not seeing the distinction by adding a middle man decisionmaker.

                    2. Why are you conflating canceling people with canceling anti-white racism training, Baghdad Sacastro?

                    3. Because, Sam, if a principle is to be consistent, it must be content neutral.

                      Everyone is having a lot of trouble creating a definition of cancel culture that doesn’t include the Trump admin’s actions. (Not to mention Trump’s twitter account’s constant calling on people he doesn’t agree with to be fired).

                      So all the ire many of you vent on cancel culture isn’t real. You want to use it to go after your own villains just as the other side is.

                    4. Is anyone trying to ruin the lives of these delusional anti-white bigots and make them social and commercial pariahs?

                      Thats cancel culture. Boycotts themselves are not cancel culture. Cancel culture goes beyond merely not voting with your dollars.

                      Now I know your shtick and you will pretend that nothing else but commercial boycotts is going on, but no one else believes that. Only you Herr Goebbels.

                    5. Read the original post in this thread, Sam.

                    6. Terminating a federal contract where militant progs teach anti-white pseudoscience to federal workers is not “Cancel Culture”, Sarcastro.

                    7. Except in this whole thread, you’ve failed to explicate a distinction beyond mere partisanship.

                    8. Except that definition I provided from one of yalls links, of course.

                    9. “Everyone is having a lot of trouble creating a definition of cancel culture that doesn’t include the Trump admin’s actions.”

                      Huh? You just pulled some bullshit claim out of your ass that Trump’s OMB order was “cancel culture”. Do you have a definition that includes the Trump admin’s actions? You already failed once.

                      But I don’t need to define “cancel culture,” there are plenty of definitions floating around. Here’s one. It doesn’t include declining to pay for information or training that you believe is wrong.

              2. It’s when all the Country-Western radio stations make a big deal of dropping the Dixie Chicks from their playlists because they said mean things about George W Bush. No, wait, it was when large groups of American conservatives held record-burnings to commemmorate that time John Lennon said the Beatles were really popular. Or maybe it was that time protesters in Florida hounded Jim Morrison completely out of the country and didn’t simmer down until they were told he was dead in Paris.

                1. Radio example would be a classic case of a boycotting not cancel culture. Boycotting/pressuring any advertisers for a radio station that dares to play the Dixie Chicks if they don’t pull support would be a case of cancel culture.

                  1. Boycotting would involve people who buy Dixie Chicks products, which radio stations do not. There were boycotts of the Chicks, as well, but this isn’t an example of a boycott.

              3. “OK, then tell me; how do you define cancel culture?”

                As something other than a consumer declining to pay for information that they think is incorrect.

        4. Cancel culture is a bunch of deranged lunatic Leftists who are trying to hurt severely normal Americans for wrongthink or wrongspeak

          1. This seems like Trump’s got his own wrongthink and wrongspeak.

          2. “Cancel culture is a bunch of deranged lunatic Leftists”

            All those Country-Western radio stations that dropped the Dixie Chicks, for example.

            1. Thats a boycott, not cancel culture.

              1. You got that exactly 180 degrees backwards.

                1. Cancel culture is ruining someone’s public, private, and commercial life for wearing, say, a Trump hat or an American flag in a picture on Instagram.

                  1. It’s too late to change course now. You got two things mixed up and then clicked “Submit”. You’ll still have them backwards if you refresh the page, no matter how many times you hit “refresh”.

                    1. Sam’s really giving the game away lol.

                    2. Do you think Cancel Culture is entirely just commercial boycotts or is it other things? If it is or includes other things, what are those?

                    3. Cancel culture is the embrace of viewpoint discrimination as a general good, whether public or private.

                    4. “Do you think Cancel Culture is entirely just commercial boycotts or is it other things?”

                      It isn’t commercial boycotts at all. A person of normal intelligence would be able to deduce that it must be something else. A person of your intelligence needs this explained.
                      A boycott is when you don’t want any of your money to become THEIR money, where THEY are the target of the boycott. “Cancel Culture is using influence other than money to try to deprive a person of their income or position.

                    5. Pollack, what makes you think I don’t understand that definition but Sacastro somehow does?

                      He and you seem to believe Cancel Culture is strictly boycotting, e.g. your Dixie Chick’s example

                    6. What in my comment made you think I was only talking about boycotting, Sam?

                    7. “Pollack, what makes you think I don’t understand that definition”

                      The fact that you keep saying things like:
                      “He and you seem to believe Cancel Culture is strictly boycotting”
                      despite having been told that boycotting is something totally different. that’s why.

                    8. I’m stating cancel culture is more than boycotting, you and Sacastro seem be saying not playing Dixie Chick’s (aka boycotting) is an example of cancel culture.

                      I’ve stated repeatedly it is not boycotting. Now you’ve taken my side and act like I’ve been wrong all along instead of you.

                    9. You seem slow. Not playing Dixie Chicks on your radio station still isn’t a boycott, no how matter times you try repeating the claim that it is. A boycott is when a person chooses to realign their spending to make sure that their money doesn’t go to someone they disapprove of. Radio stations don’t pay recording artists to use their records.

              2. How about this? Cancel Culture or not?

                1. Your link doesn’t go anywhere.

                  1. Must’ve already been canceled.

                  1. From your link:

                    “One of their political weapons is ‘cancel culture’ — driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees. ”

                    Whose doing that to that these anti-white bigots doing these federal seminars?

                    P.S. note there isn’t an “or”

                    1. That would be Donald J. Trump, living proof that any idiot can grow up to be President.

        5. Sometimes you just pwn yourself Sarcastro. The difference between refusing to pay for nonsense which creates a toxic workplace environment and a violent riot to physically stop a lecture and injures a professor enough to require a visit to the emergency room should be apparent even to you.

          From the Boston Globe:
          “The normally peaceful campus of Middlebury College, with its mountain backdrop and elite reputation, was shaken last week after violent student protesters shut down a talk by controversial conservative social scientist Charles Murray and injured a Middlebury professor who was with him.”

          1. Or it’s you who pwn yourself.

            ‘Nonsense that creates a toxic work environment’ could as easily apply to liberals calling for this prof or that to be fired for not being sufficiently work.

            The only content-neutral distinction you draw is the method – protesting and petitions bad but actual governmental top-regulation good?! How unamerican.

            As to your cherry-picked 3-years old Globe quote, if you want to limit cancel culture to violent protests, you’ll have to take it up with conservatives who have a much wider definition.

            1. “As to your cherry-picked 3-years old Globe quote, if you want to limit cancel culture to violent protests, you’ll have to take it up with conservatives who have a much wider definition.”

              I can assure you that no conservative would have dared do anything violent at a leftist protest when I was there — I wouldn’t have tolerated it.

              The violence was from the left.

              1. “I can assure you that no conservative would have dared do anything violent at a leftist protest when I was there — I wouldn’t have tolerated it.”

                If only we could take your word for it, but you strain credibility on the reg.

                “The violence was from the left.”

                For example, at Chancellorsville, when the violent leftists threw themselves in front of the peaceful right-winger’s car, attempting to break his bumper with their skulls.

                Or the case of Jeremy Christian, who was minding his own business screaming at a couple of teenage girls on a transit train when he suddenly had to defend himself against three grown men, who threw their arterial blood all over him in a totally unprovoked attack. Then the leftists in Portland had the nerve to charge him with crimes just because the knife that ventilated the mens’ throats had his fingerprints on it.

              2. I can assure you that no conservative would have dared do anything violent at a leftist protest when I was there — I wouldn’t have tolerated it.

                Except for the ones with guns coming to protests and shooting people.
                And the ones running over protesters with cars.
                Both of which you’ve defended.

                And didn’t you say you wish that couple had shot those BLM protesters?

                So yeah, you in particular don’t have standing to claim nonviolence on your side.

  11. Shouldn’t they ask the newborn how it identifies before assigning it a race? You know, just like biological sex?

    1. Stop trying to have biological sex with a newborn. They can’t give consent.

      1. Now you’re opposed to gay rights?

        1. Your reading and analytical skills are beyond reproach, but at the same time, below average.

          1. You said sex with babies, given that Gay Rights pedo protection act just passed in CA, i assumed you were referring to that.

            1. No idea WTF you’re babbling about. Just that you seem to be fantasizing about newborn sex.

              1. https://thewashingtonsentinel.com/california-democrat-pushes-bill-making-gay-sex-between-adults-and-minors-legal/

                This passed. Another victory in KKKirklands Culture War. Now our Betters(tm) can freely have gay sex with minors in the name of progress and to stamp out Clinger Bigotry.

                1. Such a pity you’d rather spend time on the computer than get out an exercise your newfound freedom.

  12. A professor recently came out as transracial, and people are calling he to be fired because of her identity! Disgusting!

  13. Modern practice lets individuals identify themselves as “Multiracial (two or more races)”. Which seems to resolve the problem.

  14. Here’s an easy solution to this problem

    Underneath the “Race” category, put “Human”. (I.E. a member of the human race)

    Easy. Peasy.

    1. Not so easy, because some gov’t regs say that if a person does not reveal his race, the regulated party must guess based on appearance, last name, etc., and put something down.

      1. “Other” is a required category — and “human” is other.

        1. “‘human’ is other.”

          To you it is.

          1. That isn’t even a good ad hominem.

            Surely you can do better than that.

            1. You are other than human isn’t any kind of ad hominem, by definition.

  15. I just happened this morning to be looking at my maternal grandfather’s WWII (1942) draft registration card on Ancestry.com. The preprinted choices under ‘race’ were:
    White / Negro / Oriental / Indian / Filipino (!)
    Combined with a ‘complexion’ category comprising:
    sallow / light / ruddy / dark / freckled / light brown / dark brown / black
    “Race” is a bureaucratic category more than anything else, and the government has never quite made up its mind as to how to define it: every such list briefly carries the weight of authority and seems bizarre to the next generation. In its appeal to authority and fundamental arbitrariness, I’m reminded of the verdict in Miracle on 34th Street: “Since the United States government declares this man to be Santa Claus, this court will not dispute it.” I’ve also been reviewing the responses of 3,042 alumnae of the University of Michigan to a survey sent out in 1924, which included a ‘race’ question without a pre-set list. Left on their own, the women of Michigan came up with an astonishing variety of self-identifications, from “D.A.R.” to “American Jewess” to “Lutheran stock,” “Gentile,” “Aryan,” “Yankee,” “Irish,” and (most unusually) “Karen” (i.e., the Karen people of Burma and Thailand). Many challenged the coherence of the question, and maybe that is the example we should follow.

    1. In 1924, in Michigan, D.A.R. probably was Daughter Army of the Republic — G.A.R. daughters.

      1. I’d wager it was Daughters of the American Revolution.

        1. In Michigan? They sent a lot of units….

          1. Turns out that after the Revolution, people were free to move around the country with complete freedom, almost like the pro-liberty side won that war or something.

Please to post comments