The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Trump is Wrong (and Offensive) re Harris's Racial/Ethnic Identity
Given Donald Trump's recent remarks about Kamala Harris' racial/ethnic identity, it's an unfortunate coincidence that I posted something earlier this week noting that Harris once emphasized her Indian heritage more.
So just to formally disassociate myself from Trump's views, no, I do NOT think that Harris is faking a black identity, and the fact that she once gave more public attention to the Indian part of her heritage as part of her political persona does NOT mean that she is insincere in also having a black identity.
And it's quite silly and offensive to say she can't identify with *both* her black and Indian heritages. And she has! From what I can tell, from the earliest point in her public career she was quite forthright in stating that her (largely absent) father was black, her mother was Indian, and that her mother took pains to raise her with exposure to both cultures and identities.
Not surprisingly, she emphasizes one or the other publicly depending on the context--doing an Indian cooking segment with Mindy Kaling vs. speaking to a gathering of her historically black college sorority, for example. And of course sometimes there is political salience to emphasizing one identity or another. But she's is, after all, a politician, so she should be expected to act like one!
As the author of a book about modern racial classification in the US, one thing I've noted is that she rarely if ever refers to herself as "multiracial." That's also quite understandable. A 'multiracial' movement gained steam in the US in the early 1990s, powered primary by young activists with one black and one non-black parent. One thing that particularly irked them was that not only could you not check "multiracial" on the Census and other federal forms (you still can't), but you had to choose only one racial box to check, you could not check "Asian American" and "Black," for example (now you can, since 1997). But when Harris came of age a bit before this was a "thing," so it's not surprising that she doesn't use the multiracial nomenclature.
UPDATE: Here is Trump's statement, made during an interview at a conference of black journalists: "I didn't know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black and now, she wants to be known as Black. So, I don't know, is she Indian or is she Black?… she was Indian all the way, and then all of a sudden she made a turn, and she went -- she became a Black person." I suppose Trump is also a product of his times, when you had to "choose" one identity, at least officially, but I suspect that it more comes down to him trying to turn a segment of black voters against her by falsely suggesting that she's exploiting a black heritage that she previously neglected.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hear, hear David. You’re being a real mensch right now.
If we're suddenly all for transraciality now and anyone can be any race they want. Or at least any race in which they have a drop of in their past then the Left should be first in line to apologize. The Dems have up until a few days ago largely been against transraciality. For example the CBC has long barred people who looked white from joining. Most Dems stood by and allowed Elizabeth Warren to take the heat for claiming to be Indian since it was politically convenient for them. And it was widely considered on both sides that she was wrong.
Now all of a sudden when Kamala does it its okay? This is the story OP should write about rather than moan about Trump rightfully calling out the hypocrisy.
FFS. Harris is half-black, half-Indian by virtue of her parents. End of story.
I heard she's only 1/4 black, or less.
As long as we're being picky.
Her father's parents were both black.
If we're going by the definition we're using for Kamala (less than 1/2) you're right.
I suggest Trump and the rest of the troglodytes keep pushing the nonsense that she isn't black.
Dems pushing to bring back the one drop rule. What a time to be alive.
I look forward to celebrating your replacement, clinger.
Ich auch
I look forward to watching your replacement on television. 🙂
For someone accusing others being of being racist you're weirdly obsessed with the intricacies of her ancestors.
The Dems are literally the ones making race the centerpiece of their campaign and trivializing it simultaneously by dropping and adapting labels strategically and stretching definitions to the breaking point yet I'm the obsessed one for pointing it out?
Weird how you Americans have become obsessed with the word ‘weird’ the last couple of weeks, no?
Just kidding. Keeping going high when they go low, Yankee Doodle dipshit. Keep showing the world that you’re not just a petulant, totalitarian imbecile in the midst of a civilisational death spiral. 🙂
The Dems are literally the ones making race the centerpiece of their campaign
They literally are not. The fact that you think so only establishes that you are obsessed with race. You and Trump. Not good company. For either of you.
'They literally are not. The fact that you think so only establishes that you are obsessed with race. You and Trump. Not good company. For either of you'.
No one outside the USA believes you---about this, or, really, anything else any more.
No. They were Jamaican.
There is a big difference -- she is Indian & Jamaican, not American.
She is the decedent of a slave OWNER, not of slaves.
"I heard."
Sir, this is an easy Wikipedia visit. Don't be so willing to show your ass.
Guy who routinely hassles people about sources leans hard on vague rumor, film at 11.
half indian maybe. Her fathers side is mixed. At least it was until the 'factcheckers' started revising the wikipedia entries.
White, black, or purple, she is still descended from slave owners, and should pay reparations for life.
Biracial doesn’t mean race has no meaning, you werido.
She's not biracial.
She’s not biracial.
You are a worthless right-wing write-off and a deplorable stain on America.
Everyone has problems.
You don't get define what she is. And you don't get to stipulate what counts as acceptable or unacceptable discourse. You have NO moral, epistemic, or political authority or standing. You are a parochial, totalitarian moron.
You are a stain upon the world, and your superficial ideology has been dragging down the West, and the world, for far too long. The global intifada against your values is on right now.
You will be eliminated soon enough, though, by your own compatriots. Face justice, AIDS, even if you're too much of a coward to face the truth.
No she is. You just don’t know what the word means.
Yeah, go deep on the reverse quadroon shit.
Bi means two. She's not two races or at least not the composite of two she emphasizes by any sensible definition. Try harder gaslighto.
Biracial means parents of different races. Look it up. Weirdo.
What race are Indians? (the Joe Biden 7-11 variety, not the fake Poke-a-hontas Lizzie Warren type)
because Cums-a-lot's Birth Certificate lists her Mother's race as
"Caucasian"
Frank
If you don’t vote for Kamala, then you ain’t biracial.
So how do you feel about Donald Trump falsely claiming Swedish heritage?
The family hid its German heritage, in large part because Fred Trump was trying to sell apartments, often to Jewish tenants, in the aftermath of World War II.
[...]
As late as 1987, in his bestselling book “The Art of the Deal,” Donald Trump was continuing with the ruse, writing that his grandfather “came here from Sweden as a child.”
But around this time, Walter said, he got a letter from a Swedish organization wanting to do a section on Trump in one of its museums.
“Oh, boy, are we in trouble now,” he recalled thinking.
Walter said that he told Fred and Donald to knock it off and own up to their German heritage. He also said George Steinbrenner — the New York Yankees owner who was also of German descent — told his friend Fred Trump, “Cut that nonsense out. You don’t need that anymore.”
By 2000, when Donald Trump wrote another book, he had a similar section on his family history. This time it included that his grandfather “came here from Germany as a child.” The lie about a Swedish heritage had been abandoned.
The whole notion that one's identity can be reduced to just your skin color is what's truly offensive. Deeply, utterly, discouragingly, offensive.
Up until a few days ago the Dems disagreed with your position. Better late than never I guess.
Speak to Trump about that. Re: Obama not being a real American, the Central Park Five deserving death even after they were proven innocent, ordering all black people out of his casino, refusing to rent to black people . . .
Bullshit.
Obama was not of American Black blood -- his father was Kenyan.
The Central Park Five bragged about their guilt.
He'd have lost his gaming license had he ordered Blacks out of his casino, and it was his FATHER whom HUD accused of racial bias in renting, and I believe that was settled without a finding.
Damn it, will you please STOP injecting facts into the Reason comments?
It upsets the narratives of everyone,.
One can't "stop" doing something one never started.
1) Obama was 100% American.
2) The Central Park Five did not brag about their guilt.
3) The previous commenter had a mistaken detail: Trump ordered black employees, not black customers, off the casino floor. And, you fucking moron, he was fined $500,000 by the Gaming Commission for that.
4) And, as always, you're wrong; it was Fred Trump, Trump Management and Donald Trump, who the DOJ sued for discrimination.
1) Obama was 100% American.
No one said he wasn't, just that he was not descended from slaves.
2) The Central Park Five did not brag about their guilt.
No, they confessed to it.
3) The previous commenter had a mistaken detail: Trump ordered black employees, not black customers, off the casino floor. And, you fucking moron, he was fined $500,000 by the Gaming Commission for that.
No, managers at the casino did and the casino was fined $200,000.
4) And, as always, you’re wrong; it was Fred Trump, Trump Management and Donald Trump, who the DOJ sued for discrimination.
...and
Eventually, the government and Trump Management entered into a consent decree in June 1975.
The Trumps admitted no wrongdoing and were prohibited from “discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling.” They were also required to take out advertisements notifying minority individuals that they had an equal opportunity to seek housing at Trump properties.
TRUMP said Obama wasn't American, of course.
Cite.
As a leading proponent of birtherism, Trump questioned Obama's American citizenship. Do you think Sarcastr0 meant a different definition of American?
Mr. Bumble is correct; it was $200,000, not $500,000. Which was an unfortunate error on my part, but leaves unchanged the point that Dr. Ed's "It couldn't have happened because the casino would've been punished" was a typical Dr. Ed Ignoring Pope's injunction.
Dr. Ed was responding to captncrisis's comment which contained mis-information.
Also, you seem to have ignored the rest of my reply to your comment.
The Central Park Five weee not “proven innocent” (which would have been a nice trick, since they’re very obviously guilty), and Trump’s ad calling for them to be executed was in 1989, long before any “exoneration” was begun.
They were very obviously guilty of something, but not the rape/assault of the Central Park Jogger.
They were certainly guilty of assault.
Again: not of the Central Park Jogger. Of others in the park (who were hurt much less badly), yes.
Exactly -- and let's not forget the slave OWNERSHIP aspect of Harris.
Can you think of any reason why a black person might have an ancestor who owned slaves?
This is absolutely not the case for Harris. On both sides of the family. Neither of which are related to American slavery.
"In 1830, 3,775 Black slaveholders, including those of mixed race, owned 12,760 slaves in the South. 80% of these slaveholders lived in Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland."
1. It was rape, ThePublius. Don’t post some random edge cases to be a slavery apologist. It was all the raping.
2. The full quote is, "In 1830, there were 3,775 black (including mixed-race) slaveholders in the South who owned a total of 12,760 slaves, which was a small percentage of a total of over two million slaves then held in the South. 80% of the black slaveholders were located in Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia and Maryland"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_slave_owners
Why would you leave that middle bit out? What kind of impression were you hoping people would takeaway?
If we're discussing how a black person today could have slave owning ancestors, and somebody notes that historically there were a significant number of black slave owners, you know what that means?
It can't be ALL due to the raping.
What's the problem here? "Mostly" isn't good enough for you, you have to deny reality to make it "all"?
Reality is just too complicated, you need to replace it with a nice, clean illusion?
It can’t be ALL due to the raping.
Why make this pedantic point? Why are you focusing on the edge cases to ignore all the rapes.
No one but you even said mostly.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
I invite every law faculty hiring committee in America to review this discussion.
No wonder a legitimate educational institution would be disinclined to hire a Federalist Society member for an academic position. Nonsense-based schools with conservative-controlled campuses are where Federalist Society members belong. Right-wing mouthpiece shops, too.
Why make this pedantic point?
Well, why did YOU insist on "all", and get so pissy when it was pointed out to you it wasn't true?
I'm not insisting on all. I'm saying that moving the goalposts to the pedantic 'well it wasn't all rape' is a deflection.
A deflection from all the raping.
Why would you provide cover for that?
Some people have difficulty recognizing, understanding, and/or handling normal human interaction, nuance, and pedantry. This seems quite common at the Volokh Conspiracy.
In this part of the world we call those people 'Americans'.
At any rate, so says the untermensch who repeatedly talks about 'replacing' its fellow Americans and for them to 'carry on' till some future threat?
Says they oaf who can't rationally justify his dogmas but cloaks himself in the language of reason and science?
Carry on, AIDS. You won't be around for very much longer by the looks of things, though.
In America we call them Republicans, on-the-spectrum misfits, religious kooks, right-wingers, incels, antisocial clingers, disaffected culture war casualties, half-educated hayseeds, conservatives, Federalist Society members, gun nuts, faux libertarian wingnuts, MAGA hillbillies, and Volokh Conspirators and fans.
No, YOUR subset does, as part of a delegitimization strategy.
And you fail to see how it applies to YOU because, despite your conceited self-delusions, you really do lack global awareness, you're not very well educated, and you're obtuse.
Your values also clearly form part of an evolutionarily inferior meme, which is part of the reason why you're losing the global culture war. You'd KNOW that to be so, but, as noted above...
12,760 is not a "significant number" out of over 2,000,000. It is .06%. 12,760 is, rather, an "insignificant" number.
0.6%, you were off by a factor of ten.
That quote also excludes Native American slave owners of American blacks.
One could quibble more, especially about the required usage of ellipses, but you’re LITERALLY FUCKING ARGUING OVER WIKIPEDIA.
Now, why not have a more fruitful conversation about the Islamic slave trade? Its racial dynamics. Its overall numbers. Its ties to imperialism.
How about the fact that the Prophet (PBUH) owned slaves and THEREFORE some form of slavery MUST be acceptable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3yuZYaoaag
Boy, you Europeans have a weird Islam fetish.
Weird how Americans have becomes obsessed with using the word 'weird' a lot over the last couple of weeks.
Weird.
OK, Gaslight0, when the slaves in DC were freed circa 1862, their owners were compensated. Look up the number of Black slaveowners DC paid money to.
Their ancestors came from Africia where Slavery is still practiced
To work his sugar plantation...
Maybe people get jealous that they don't have several cultures to identify with. If you have a lot of your ancestry in several different cultures, you should embrace it!
embrace = use selectively for political gain.
lol you guys are so craven and transparent in your opportunism. All this talk about race from the Dems. Black this, woman that. They don't give a shit any more than their opponents beyond what they can gain and its never been more obvious.
Open wider, clinger.
You say that almost reflexively, as if you're used to your victims, I mean players "complying" I think John Wayne Bobbit used to say that to his wife.
Gonna spray him with your AIDS, AIDS?
President Trump was not impugning anyone's choice of racial identity. His point was that Kamala was and is exploiting race for her own self-aggrandizement. Are his detractors not that smart or just intentionally misinterpreting the import of his comments? Or is it the mentally debilitating effects of TDS? Bonus AP headline: California's Kamala Harris becomes first Indian-American US senator
You can also find headlines about her becoming the first black/black woman senator. She was both.
Wait, what? She was neither the first black senator, the first woman senator, nor the first black woman senator. (That would be Carol Moseley Braun.) She was, however, the first black/black woman veep.
I could be confused with stories I saw about hr being the first black woman veep, or maybe state AG. But in any event , good point. Since she wasn’t the first black woman senator from California, of course any headline about her being the first would be about her being the first Asian woman or Indian woman
Racial politics can get overly complicated. Maybe we shouldn’t play these ridiculous race games anymore?
What?!?! What would CRT and BLM do? What about what's-her-race, Robin D'Angelo? Or Rachel D--- something? Are they suddenly of no importance?
Great comment at a white, male conservative blog operated by and for bigotry-embracing culture war casualties.
"As one gets older one becomes grateful for a failing memory."
Karidian, "The Conscience of the King".
Yes, you're "Confused", you're an old man! you didn't mean to take those books without paying!
President Trump was not impugning anyone’s choice of racial identity.
Yes he was. Trump was going after her for emphasizing different parts of her identity at different times, implying her black identity was insincere.
And, as he often does, Trump was using the race of an opponent as the focus of his attacks. The fact he does it on a regular basis does suggest he's kinda racist (not to mention his comfort with the n-word).
His point was that Kamala was and is exploiting race for her own self-aggrandizement.
She's a politician, of course she used her identity for votes. But that doesn't mean her connections to both her Black and Indian heritage aren't sincere.
Bonus AP headline: California’s Kamala Harris becomes first Indian-American US senator
There's nothing wrong with that headline.
She was the first Indian-American senator. And if there hadn't been any black senators before her she also would have been the first Black senator.
Really? Do tell. What Jamaican traditions does she regularly participate in and how did she apply them to her time as a prosecutor?
Well, if you actually look at Jamaican history, a portion of it involved exploiting young black men for cheap labor. Kamala appears to have carried on that tradition as CA AG; exploiting imprisoned young black men (that she helped to keep incarcerated) for their cheap labor. And laughing about it...that is the part that sets people off, the hypocrisy about the weed while she was the frickin AG. Contrast that behavior with President Trump getting First Step legislation passed through Congress.
Is Kamala a race grifter, along the lines of Al Sharpton? That is the implied question. The answer very much depends on ones view of VP Harris. It was the same kind of thing with Hillary, what one thought of her colored ones perception of her actions. The recent oration by VP Harris in GA did not help matters any; quite the opposite, it reinforced the grifter perception.
What was it that Harry Truman said about heat and kitchens? Just ask the guy who was: selectively prosecuted by his political opponents in the government, impeached (twice, lol), and shot. Politics (the pursuit of power) is a rough and nasty business.
" Contrast that behavior with President Trump getting First Step legislation passed through Congress. "
Or with Trump being a lifelong, cruel bigot who panders to disaffected right-wing culture war roadkill.
If it's worth anything, she did make a very improbable claim that her family used to celebrate Kwanzaa when she was a child.
Yes! the GOP should ask her to justify her Jamaicanness! That'll get her!!
I'd love to see you defend Trump's "Swedish" ancestry.
C’mon Riva, you know you’re just repeating something Trump doesn’t even believe—the I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black thing.
He was just mad at Harris getting all the attention the last two weeks so went for outrageous race-baiting to get the spotlight back on him.
Did you really fall for it, or you just playing along? Either way, would be nice to nice to hear something original from you, and not just one more MAGA-talking-point-of-the-day.
He was just mad at Harris getting all the attention
Nah. Take the artichoke out of your butt.
He was poking fun at her for being conveniently black or conveniently Indian. He's gently ribbing her for being a phoney. Which is not to say that she's not black, or Indian, it's a character type - I'm who you want me to be, vote for me, I'm one of you guys ! It goes with the excruciatingly awful Southern accent. What you see is not what you get.
As you could tell from the laughter, a good proportion of the audience found the joke amusing.
He’s gently ribbing her for being a phoney
Sure, keep telling yourself that. Not going to get a lot of non-MAGA to go along with you.
As you could tell from the laughter, a good proportion of the audience found the joke amusing.
And keep telling yourself that, as well. At this point it's become pretty clear that's not how it played. (They ended the interview early; the crowd was not exactly eating out of Trump's hand)
‘Sure, keep telling yourself that. Not going to get a lot of non-MAGA to go along with you’.
Yes, you most certainly will, across the entire world and the entire political spectrum.
Within the US, he’ll also have the hard left on his side. This is because it has long held that your race discourses are a form of distraction from class consciousness and that race and gender concerns are merely epiphenomenal anyway. (They also think CRT is, or got mainstreamed as part of, a psyop, for obvious reasons.)
Your American identity discourses are rightfully looked upon with suspicion, and ridiculed, across the world.
See, one reason I know you're full of shit when you pretend to speak for the rest of the world is how fucking nonexistent your knowledge is of the U.S.
In a country of 330,000,000 people, the number of people who hold the views you describe would fit in a Tesla with room left over for Elon Musk's ego.
David, I know quite a few Americans on the left who think and PUBLISH exactly this stuff. Those orthodox Marxists and socialists hate CRT. They aren't a tiny number at all. Just fucking google Adolf Reed, as but one example.
Still want to deny that this is so in the United States? Then, shall we bet about THIS as well? Same terms: today's fair market value of your primary residence if you win, free-and-clear title of your primary residence where you cover all transfer costs (if any) for gifting it to me if/when I win.
I will take your house.
You don't in fact know any Americans. You've identified one guy — which gives you four or five seats left in the Tesla, depending on which model we're discussing — who unfortunately for you rejects your notion that identity politics is a distraction from class consciousness. You should've googled a little harder before you tried desperately to flail to support an absurd position.
You could've cited Bernie Sanders — someone who actually matters in the U.S., unlike random old Marxist professors — who tried to base his 2016 campaign for the nomination on the notion you describe. Unfortunately for you, he had to repudiate that position, and embrace identity politics, because that's not where the U.S. polity is or has been for many decades.
David, David, David....
Bet me on this: about the Marxists generally, and about Adolf Reed particularly!
What are you afraid of---aside from losing your home?
I also COULDN'T have cited to, or quoted, Bernie, since he doesn't actually take the orthodox line. You'd know that if you knew anything about him, or the Marxists, etc. But thank you for betraying your ignorance about this. It's very much appreciated.
Yeah, It's just a joke...can't you take a joke?.
Trump has always felt it better to be ridiculed than ignored and has never hidden his Glenn Close side:
C'mon Lee, you're smarter than Riva. I know you don't believe what you wrote, and are just playing along, reinforcing the approved message.
Explaining jokes to those who don't get them is always a thankless task.
But plenty of the audience got the joke, contra Sarcastro's signature gaslighting.
That Trump's audience laughs at something doesn't make it non-racist, or even funny.
So, that’s your story and you’re sticking to it. Impressive feat of staying in character!
Certainly a lot of people think that idea is funny—they’re exactly who Trump directed his planned remark to, in the hope more of his couch-aficionado followers will leave the couch long enough to vote in November.
None of them, however, were in the hall. You understand the difference between did-he-really-say-what-I-thought-heard-him-say nervous laughter, and laughing-at-a-joke laughter, but your character doesn’t, so you stick to the schtick no matter how ridiculous it makes you look.
Trump must be mad that his attention-bump was so quickly overridden by the hostage release stories—probably thinks Biden planned it that way.
But way to sacrifice for your art, man!
How on earth do you figure he was gaslighting?
Conveniently Black?
She attended a historically Black college -- which existed because of white bigots like the Volokh Conspirators and their fans -- and pledged a Black sorority.
You seem bigoted, antisocial, and likely an on-the-spectrum, right-wing culture war casualty who hates modern, reasoning, diverse, successful, mainstream America. What happened to you?
Lee can't tell when people are laughing at someone rather than laughing with him. Trump didn't runaway early because the crowd thought his "jokes" were great.
When did Donald Trump claim that Kamala Harris is faking a Black identity?
Maybe it was the part where he said she wasn't black. Or the part where he just reposted Laura Loomer's tweet in which she said that Harris wasn't black. Or the part where any one of dozens of his surrogates said that she wasn't black.
At least Bernstein had the integrity to provide a specific quote that made it clear he made up the things he accused Trump of saying.
And you're just sealioning. It's not like we're talking about something from 10 years ago and you genuinely don't know. You know exactly what Trump said — and/or you could go to any news website and find out — and you're just pretending not to. Why should I waste my time indulging your bad faith question?
I would ask you the exact same question. Bernstein's description of what Trump said was wrong and yours was flatly dishonest.
So now you're not pretending that you don't know what Trump said? You're just pretending that it doesn't mean exactly what it means?
There's one person pretending what Trump said, and lying when called out on it. Dave, heal thyself.
Indeed there is. But, you know, if Michael P just had said, "I interpreted Trump's statement differently," this wouldn't have been a discussion. Instead, he pretended not to know what statements we were talking about.
Keep pretending/lying. To most people, it's obvious how badly TDS has scrambled your brain.
You're confused; I don't support Trump.
I know what Trump said. I couldn't initially tell what you were talking about because you were, as usual, vague and evasive about the supposed factual basis when insulting a political opponent. And again as usual, that turned out to be because you were being dishonest in your characterization of things.
This is the first time I've heard DMN called evasive.
That un-American right-wing bigots like Michael P are dying off and being replaced by better people is what makes America great.
I was thinking the same thing about Sheila Jackson Lee
Just wait till your whole family is replaced, AIDS. It will be a marked improvement for the world.
I haven’t been following this. Did Trump actually say “Harris is faking a black identity” ?
I saw some clip but the part I saw sounded more or less the same as "Kamala Harris's Indian Background Was Once a More Prominent Part of Her Curated Image" stated in different words.
... is not her "Indian Background Was Once a More Prominent Part of Her Curated Image."
Closer to that than 'she's faking being black'. Especially since her heritage is Jamaican and she grew up in Canada. Insomuch as black is a cultural identity in the US, she doesn't qualify.
Jamaicans are black. Canada has black people in it. And she grew up in California, and lived just 6 of her 60 years of life in Canada.
So all Jamaicans are black?
Canada has black people in it. (about 4% 0f the population, roughly 1,5 million people)
Define "grew up". Her family moved to various places in the Midwest from age 2-6, back to California for grade school then on to Canada for high school and two years of college.
Not your Beach Boys California girl.
Are you...trying to go deep into what counts as authentically black?
Is that your current plan?
If so, please proceed.
"If you don't vote for me you ain't black " ring a bell?
"Jamaicans are black."
False. There are white Jamaicans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Jamaicans
Pedantry as straw grasping is sure on display today!
Top Senate Democrat apologizes for slur
March 4, 2001
Web posted at: 2:21 p.m. EST (1921 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd apologized Sunday for a slur he used during a discussion of race relations in a nationally broadcast interview.
In an interview taped Friday for "Fox News Sunday," Byrd, 83, was asked about race relations in the United States.
"They are much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime," Byrd said, but added that he believed people talk about race too much.
"My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that. There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word.
I'm relatively certain you have a vocabulary level higher than an 8th grader's , which means you for damn sure know what cultural identity means. Yet your response indicates you do not. Interesting.
If you fuck Willie Brown don't you absorb some of his downright coolness by Osmosis?
No, actually it pretty much IS the same thing. Bernstein is just pissed that he and Trump said similar things about the same time, which given his conviction that Trump is an awful man induces some serious cognitive dissonance that he's attempting to purge.
Prof. Bernstein was quite careful in what he said. Trump…was not. Look in the comments at what Bob from Ohio said and how Bernstein pushed back.
Surely, turning your always incredible telepathy on him is sure going to turn out great.
Yeah, the Prof is an academic, and writes like an academic. Trump is a businessman and politician, and speaks in the offhand manner of both.
But the gist of it is the same, which is why the good Professor has to get it on record that they weren't really talking about the same thing: Harris' record of changing the part of her racial identity she talks about as she finds convenient.
No, the gist wasn't the same. You really are instrumentally bad at reading.
If you think it was the same, I point you to the OP where Prof. Bernstein himself says it wasn't the same.
Not that the direct contradiction of the man whose mind you are reading will shake your confidence.
Now you're also doing editing what Trump actually said. Even as elsewhere you yourself question her authentic blackness.
You're all over the map now. In cover for your guy being weird on race. You're not every well equipped to defend someone who is being weird on race.
Yeah, the gist was not the same at all. Bernstein made a point in the first OP that there was nothing wrong with Harris emphasizing different aspects of her cultural heritage at different times. Trump, on the other hand, pretended she wasn't Black and then "turned Black" all of a sudden. Aside from idiocy, it is highly offensive.
You're too smart not to have reading comprehension at this level, whatever neurodivergence you have. One can only presume bad faith on your part defending a man whose comments were, quite clearly, in bad faith and, also, moronic.
To be honest, his words were eye-rolling and a bit childish, but nothing of real import.
This very much feels like a tired repeat of "Trump said the sky is blue, but that's terrible misinformation since it's actually a shade of purple, and that's racist as of 5 minutes ago".
After all, multiple people have complained about her putting on a stereotypical accent when addressing the black community. It's been a common criticism of her for years now.
I generally disagree with Bernstein, but he's spot on with this one.
Still not as bad as Biden saying that all black people who didn't vote for him were faking a black identity.
He didn’t say that.
He didn’t say precisely that. But neither did Trump.
And I notice most of the media, under pressure from leftist, are taking pains to point out that Trump "falsely" says that Harris wasn't black.
But none of the media that I saw bothered to characterize Biden's claim as false.
Biden foreverrrrr
Because he's a zombie now and cannot die?
Because idiots like you will blame him long after he dies, like blaming the long dead Hugo Chavez for 2020 election results.
Moron: why would anyone levy blame at a non-compos mentis post-person?
Bringing up stuff like that is weird, so I can't explain why anyone would do it; ask the weirdos.
Weird how you Americans have become obsessed with the word 'weird' over the last couple of weeks...
It's almost as though you were nothing more than a bunch of petulant little shits...
Carry on going high when others go low, though, OK Yankee Doodle?
Twelve — Biden has proved himself a consummate matador. You're still charging the cape, after Biden stepped aside.
Ah yes lathrop, but remember: The fish stinks from the head down.
VP Harris has to run on the cumulative Biden inflation record; the cost of living went up a lot 2021-24. Hitting the middle (and lower) class particularly hard. Remember $2 gas? I do. So do they. 🙂
XY — What do you suppose would happen if a U.S. president somehow found a way to drive gasoline prices down to $2.00 per gallon, while the rest of the world continued as it is now? Any implications for gasoline supply in the U.S.? Would a president intent on that goal impose export controls to get there? You in favor of that?
VP Harris has to run on the cumulative Biden inflation record;
Pretty easy, when you consider Trump's proposals.
What do you think a 60% tariff on Chinese imports is going to do to prices in the US? What do you think big tax cuts in a growing economy are going to do?
The problem here is that you know little about inflation or economics generally. You simply repeat a Fox News talking point mindlessly, more to be part of the team than anything else.
SL thinks Dementia Man is playing 4d chess. Ol' drooling Joe isn't even playing with a full set.
What TIP said though isn't about Biden. It's about the Leftist media's constant, lockstep disinformation campaigns.
"These are not the droids you're looking for".
"Still not as bad as Biden saying that all black people who didn’t vote for him were faking a black identity."
You are dumb.
Well, that's a brilliant argument.
“Well I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”
That's literally what Biden said. His precise words. Even Biden knew he'd gone too far, and he's usually an unapologetic gaffe machine.
But you'll defend what HE admitted he shouldn't have said!
You edited this in the middle.
Biden was joking. Because it would be a ridiculous thing to say otherwise.
In bad taste or no, trying to say Biden meant that literally was already tried and failed. Now it's just MAGA lore.
But you've always been great at seeing jokes when Trump isn't joking, and missing jokes whenever a Dem is saying it.
"Biden was joking. Because it would be a ridiculous thing to say otherwise."
You're providing incredibly weak support for your conclusion here.
Really?! He went with the "Biden was joking" defense? Fucking Graybox0. Never fails to amaze me, that he can continue to sink lower.
Yeah, my support is I know humans and how they talk.
That's outside what Trump has said about race, and he's both more stream-of-consciousness and more...racially insensitive than Biden.
As I said, MAGA can go believe otherwise, but they’re not going to convince anyone but MAGA.
Did you miss Brett's helpful acknowledgement that Biden admitted he shouldn't have said it?
That both supports that it was an ill-conceived joke and points out a huge character difference between Trump and Biden.
I presume none of us are holding our breath for when Trump apologizes or admits he shouldn't have made an offensive joke.
By all means, compare the two men and what they say.
I don’t think it was a joke at all. It’s perfectly consistent with the way Democrats frequently attack black Republicans as “oreos”. Calling it a “joke” is damage control. What it was, was a Kinsley gaffe: He inadvertently said what he really thinks. And then realized he really shouldn't have done that.
The big difference between Trump and Biden, (One of them.) is that with Trump, what you see is what you get. He doesn’t habitually go about wearing a mask that occasionally slips. While Biden has been all mask for decades, and now he’s losing his ability to keep it in place.
So Trump looks uglier, on account of the fact that you’re seeing HIM, not a fake front. While Biden IS uglier, but tries to mask it.
Now, if you look at Harris’ employee turnover for the last few years as VP, apparently she’s both ugly, and not very good at masking it, either.
Telepathy from Brett finding more liberal badness.
In this case pretty cartoonish badness.
Go on, pull the other one. How gullible are you?
Here's what he said "Cap'n"
“If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”
Of course demented old men will say lots of demented old men things.
Frank
So if he wasn't talking about them faking an american black cultural identity if they refused to vote for him, please explain EXACTLY what he meant when he stated "Well I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black." Did he perhaps mean they were painting their skin and were really white?
He was speaking for them, assuming they wouldn't vote for a racist/racist enabler like Trump. However, "speaking for" people of another race is a big no-no in modern, race-based America.
He wasn't literally questioning their racial identity.
You must have been livid when Trump said Jews who don't vote for him aren't real Jews. Biden's statement was bad, but he walked it back within minutes like a reasonable person who said something foolish. Trump, being Trump, doubled down on Twitter.
Harris of course is the candidate that hasn't done anything similar; since you feel so strongly about it I expect you'll be voting for her this autumn.
Note the difference between Biden's statement — which nobody remembers and isn't relevant to anything since Biden isn't running for anything — and Trump's is that Trump targeted specific people. Harris isn't black, and her husband is a crappy Jew. (Can't wait to hear his assessment of Josh Shapiro, if it comes to t)hat.)
Again, it's fucking amazing how you are able to speak for everybody. What a gift. Must be a real winner in court.
If you have issue with his characterization of what Trump said, make that case.
All I see from you is a lot of handwaving bare denials and personal attacks.
I forgot the crappy Jew bit! I meant when Trump said that Jews who vote for Democrats hate Jews and Israel.
I wouldn't put it that strongly. I'd say they don't care about Israel (and, based on what's been happening here since last October, don't care about "woke" antisemitism (and "liberal" acquiescence therein)).
Jewish Democratic voters acquiesce in "liberal" / Democratic acquiescence in "woke" antisemitism. Shameful all around.
Wow, you sure do hate a large subset of American Jews!
He doesn't have much to say about Jews who are Republicans (and therefore tend to be un-American bigots) and vote for Trump, though.
Somebody mention me? Oh wait,
"Republican"??
My Progressive State of Jaw Jaw doesn't make you pick a party when you register, you do get to pick which Primary you vote in,
"Choice"!!! What a Concept!!!!!
OK, I do tend to vote for the Repubiclowns (Although I have voted for DemoKKKrats Zell Miller, Al Sharpton, and Independent Bernie S, the last 2 admittedly as goofs in 2004 and 2016)
and Maybe if the DemoKKKrat's wouldn't run Black Supremericist Wife Beaters for Senate (Rafael Warlock, if you're Ignorant) or Erection Deniers like that Tub of Lard Stacy Abrahams, I'd vote for one again.
Frank
I’d say they don’t care about Israel (and, based on what’s been happening here since last October, don’t care about “woke” antisemitism (and “liberal” acquiescence therein)).
You're just wrong, flat wrong.
Just about every Jewish friend I have would find that comment offensive, and I venture to say antisemetic via 'This is how to be a Good Jew'.
Ed Grinberg is wrong and bigoted! Who'd have imagined? Other than anyone who's ever read one of his comments before.
I'll bet some of your best friends are Jewish!
Uh....no = Jews who vote for Democrats hate Jews and Israel
Misguided, yes. Unintelligent, perhaps. Utterly lacking common sense, yes. Hatred for Jews and Israel. No.
Stick with the right-wing bigots, the superstition-addled misfits, and the culture war losers residing in can't-keep-up backwaters, XY. It suits you.
which nobody remembers
You misspelled "which the Leftist media buried".
"You must have been livid when Trump said Jews who don’t vote for him aren’t real Jews."
Nope, I'm just hearing about it now. I try to avoid listening to what Trump says.
"Harris of course is the candidate that hasn’t done anything similar; since you feel so strongly about it I expect you’ll be voting for her this autumn."
I'll vote for whoever the libertarian is.
I still don't know what Drewski is talking about. No quote, no citation. Sorry, but we don't all hate follow Trump. Or have Twitter accounts at all.
"“Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion. They hate everything about Israel and they should be ashamed of themselves"
https://apnews.com/article/trump-schumer-israel-jewish-democrats-35bd1522edd64caf1dedbb10fddf0fcf
You voting for this asshole?
And, of course, crickets. There's no outrage quite like faux outrage for Trump voters.
One wonders, though, do they find it at all embarrassing to be super mad about something, only to find out Trump did it (but worse....actually claiming ancestry he didn't have, claiming Jews who don't agree with him "hate their religion" and should be ashamed.....and, unlike Biden, not acknowledging he shouldn't have said it, but doubling down and saying it again). Or do they understand how embarrassing for them it is that they keep getting caught out being selectively outraged?
To be fair, he didn't say they "weren't real Jews"; he said they're self-hating Jews...which is a completely different thing!
It's a bit strongly worded, but I can see the argument. After all, there are specific political actions taken against Israel by the Democrats. And we have seen the extreme hatred over the past year that came out as unashamed antisemitism by some parts of the left, and the media was defending the rioters rather than their victims.
To compare, I can't remember the number of articles I've read calling Trump antisemitic for no real reason.
The thing is, I think the discussion would be better if you didn't participate at all so I'm not going to help you get up to speed. I'm pleased that you don't know what I'm talking about and I hope you move on to something more interesting to you, such as eating paste.
It was a stupid thing to say. What I think he meant was that he (Trump) would be a lot likelier to address Jewish concerns (Israel, antisemitism) than Biden (or any other Democrat for that matter). I think that's a fair point.
Yes, the Trump Presidency was good for the Jews, but not good for Jewish Leftism and Marxism.
Shall we ask the Jews? Nah...
https://forward.com/fast-forward/627843/polls-jewish-voters-biden-trump-israel/
Race and racial identity are repulsive. It's a non-sense issue.
But, since some must bring it up ... black or Black can only refer to descendants of American slaves. Thus Harris is NOT black or Black, but rather a descendent of Jamaicans who, btw, were slave owners.
Whaaaa?????
Even for this site you surely must be a Poe.
"black or Black can only refer to descendants of American slaves"
In what bizarre fantasy world is this true? Not this one.
Oh, wait. You're doing the "I'm going to narrow the definition of a word well beyond any reasonable point so I can still denigrate someone I hate" thing. Typical MAGA nonsense. Although the hard right did it long before MAGA.
Now tell me how Satanists aren't Christians, but somehow follow a Christian God (or anti-God, if you prefer).
Yes, that obviously not true, most of Africa is inhabited by Blacks.
But Wikipedia does say African American generally refers to only the descendents of American slaves, which of course would exclude both Obama and Harris.
I think that's overly pedantic.
The wiki says this: "Most African Americans are descendants of enslaved people within the boundaries of the present United States. While some Black immigrants or their children may also come to identify as African American, the majority of first-generation immigrants do not, preferring to identify with their nation of origin."
It sure as fuck does NOT say it 'generally refers to only' anything.
Why the mischaracterization?
Literally the sentence right before what you quote says:
"The term "African American" generally denotes descendants of Africans enslaved in the United States.[6][7]"
Why would you lie about something so blatant? Are you dyslexic? Is there some meaningful difference between my paraphrase 'generally refers' and generally denotes?
Of course if that still isn't good enough Don Lemon corrects April Ryan on the point.
https://x.com/DrewHLive/status/1819328351670358287
And I don't care who is right.
It said generally, it didn't say "generally only" which has a different meaning. If you're going to go apoplectic, maybe actually be in the right.
Generally the definition denotes that only descendents Blacks enslaved in America are considered African American, but others may use a different definition. Is that clear to you?
It seems clear to Don Lemon, and he goes on at length, about it, April Ryan wants to use a different definition, but seems to concede by the end of the clip.
This is a much more moderate thesis than “ Wikipedia does say African American generally refers to only the descendents of American slaves, which of course would exclude both Obama and Harris.
I think that’s overly pedantic.”
Your new take is not pedantic at all. I guess that’s a win for ze wiki.
Without that pedantry, we can celebrate the fact that the richest person in the world is an African American, right?
No fair.
What a coincidence: I was just reading an article about Russian troll farms pushing bizarre narratives about race on American internet sites.
Did the article provide any examples?
No, or no relevant ones – it discussed some earlier efforts that got shut down – but it sourced Bret Schafer from the Alliance for Securing Democracy and some anonymous intelligence officials. A lot of bot trolling is coming out of Iran and China this year apparently, but the weird stuff is from Russia which is using AI a lot more. Russian bots appear to be trolling from both sides and just targeting controversial topics, while Iranian and Chinese trolls are very pro-Trump.
So, anonymous intelligence officials want us to believe that Iran and China favor Trump? That's interesting.
Why wouldn't they favor Trump? Trump wants to blow up U.S. alliances, become isolationist, only protect Taiwan if it pays protection money…
Drewski gets his BlueAnon talking points from Vox?
"Race and racial identity are repulsive. It’s a non-sense issue."
Great comment at a white, male blog run by and for right-wing bigots.
You didn't have to say her black father was absent. You could have just said she had a black father.
How about Pansenmaria folks!!!
Give it up!!! Alright!
Yeah! He's here til Sunday!!!
Try the veal. Tip your server!
Race; is there anything it can't do?
She's certainly had more black in her in the past than currently
Politician panders. News at 11.
Prof. Bernstein, you can't have it both ways. You said:
"the fact that she once gave more public attention to the Indian part of her heritage as part of her political persona does NOT mean that she is insincere in also having a black identity."
And then you said:
"And of course sometimes there is political salience to emphasizing one identity or another. But she's is, after all, a politician, so she should be expected to act like one!"
Which is to say, as a politician, she should be expected to be insincere.
Which is it?
She has both identities. At the same time.
There, no insincerity.
I hope this helps you with all the trouble you seem to be having parsing Prof. Bernstein's posts here.
You're the one having trouble parsing Prof. Bernstein's post. But then, why not comment on the content rather than on me? Oh, yea, I forgot, that's how you roll.
I understand Prof. Bernstein's post - he and I are in agreement an what he said and how it's pretty different from what Trump said.
You and Brett are the ones who have an issue. Because you've made zero effort to understand not being white, and so you've come in with zero humility, badly equipped, and are angrily being wrong and offended anyone is offended by you.
Kinda feeding into stereotypes of white guys, to be honest.
Again, you attack me.
Holy shit, what have I done????
And to such a nice and not agro poster who certainly never attacks me.
Quit whining.
Why? What are the clear norms establishing identity here?
Is it based on social recognition? Is it based on self-selection (and, if so, wholly normative)? Is it based on some combination thereof?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia_transracialism_controversy
Just kidding: YOUR American answers to these questions are ENTIRELY political AND untrustworthy. Your answer is just your political preference of the moment (qua useful idiot. The answer is an expression of other people's will-to-power to shape political discourses more broadly).
The world will be a better place when your lot's attempts to police discourses collapse entirely.
We're not Nazi Germany; we don't have Nuremberg laws to define racial identity. Sorry if that bothers you.
It seems to bother YOU, since you’re the ones who want to police how people conceptualize and speak about such things.
And your lot is also clearly trying to implement the ‘functional equivalent’ via institutional norms (in unis, in corporations, etc), if not also in law proper yet.
Stressing one identity over another is not an act of insincerety.
Because you say so?
Because common, everyday, lived experience of anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
I tend to stress my ~3/8 (ish) Irish Heritage more on St. Patrick's day than other times of the year.
Not rocket surgery, people.
Do you know what a necessity claim is, Zarniwoop?
Do you understand the difference between saying:
(1) 'X is never Y'.
and
(2) 'Sometimes X is not Y'.
Do you also see how a proposition can be an instance of (1) without explicitly using the word 'never' or some analogue?
If so, then you can take your Fenian brain cells and lived experience and shove them up your arse whilst you remember The Boyne.
ThePublius,
That’s not having it both ways. It’s reinterpreting what he said so that you can then claim the two are contradictory. Emphasizing one aspect of your heritage rather than another doesn’t mean you are insincere about either aspect. As Bernstein reasonably points out, if you are speaking to an audience, it is actually quite common to emphasize points of commonality (and, obviously, this is a thing that is quite typical of politicians). It doesn’t mean you (or politicians) are insincere about aspects of your (their) life or heritage that you (they) don’t mention because it isn’t useful to highlight in that moment. This is true even if you think politicians are generally insincere.
Maybe if you didn’t try so hard to be a Trump apologist all the time, you could make a rational, sound point. As it is, you sound like a moron trying to appear smart.
"but I suspect that it more comes down to him trying to turn a segment of black voters against her by falsely suggesting that she's exploiting a black heritage that she previously neglected."
Well, obviously, except for the "falsely" part.
Exactly.
It is falsely. As has been pointed out, she has always embraced her black heritage. She didn't, as Trump claimed, suddenly become black.
Your and ThePublius circle jerking to stupid defenses of the indefensible is embarrassing for both of you.
You seem to have a problem distinguishing "claimed" and "pointed out".
So for you, Trump is right and you are right on how being biracial works.
Prof Bernstein is wrong. The media is wrong. The nonTrump GOP is wrong. Biden is right, but lying about it.
Is there anything ever where you allow that your personal hot take might not be of maximal insight into how people work?
We really need to do a better job of teaching at autism school. Starting with lessons in recognizing (1) when you're not likely to be a productive participant in discussions and (2) when to just shut the fuck up and let others handle the conversation.
Are you unaware that when you use "autistic" as a pejorative, as you habitually do, you're being an ableist bigot? Or do you know but not care?
Autism, as I understand it, involves strengths and weaknesses.
It also explains plenty of the commentary at this blog.
That’s not responsive. Autism is a disease. Nobody has it by choice. The afflicted are targets of discrimination and ridicule, as for example from people who use a non-volitional condition as a pejorative. What you’re doing is bigotry. Why you think it’s OK I won’t speculate, but it deprives you of standing to criticize other bigots. That you habitually do both, often in the same sentence, is hypocrisy plain and simple.
The irony of your comment is delicious. The exclusionary quality. The intolerance. The clear lack of understanding of what autism is and how it falls upon a spectrum---not that they warrant sympathy or special privileges. All of which contradicts your usual expressions of ideological-faith of inclusion and tolerance.
Whilst, today, some psychologists desperately try to classify some of the world's great minds of the past (Newton, as but one example) as having fallen upon that spectrum, YOU, a nobody with no real accomplishments and a dying superficial ideology, express the laughable belief about putting stock in the knowledge, discernment, and standing to say who can and should contribute to discussion and who shouldn't.
AIDS, very soon, in your own country, millions of people will believe that you and your lot shouldn't even be permitted to live. Your life, as you and your loved ones know it, will never be the same. Your fellow Americans (let alone the rest of the globe) has had enough of your mindless, regressive garbage.
Do NOT run away to the rest of the West. You will not be tolerated.
The Trump/Vance ticket is so hollow that this is the only issue they can bring up? Trump is spending so much time trying to put a label on Harris when he could perhaps spend some time explaining why the American people should rehire his failed backside which was fired in 2020.
Americans understand biracial/multinational as each and every day children are born with complex identities. I am five generation Irish American and I am the minority. Most of the people I have ever met are complex amalgams of heritage. That mixture is growing and not shrinking.
"The Trump/Vance ticket is so hollow that this is the only issue they can bring up?"
What makes you think it's the only issue they bring up?
Profound ignorance, possibly feigned.
It would take an amazing echo chamber to avoid hearing at least the nutty leftist defenses of the Harris-Biden administration's failed immigration, tax, government spending, college loan and other policy disasters against Trump's criticisms.
I guess I get that idea from reading the newspaper, can you suggest a good right wing site that might have an actual issue Trump has addressed in a meaningful form? I know the MAGA's were pushing the 2025 Project but they seem to throw that out after people sat down and actually read the thing. Or what about the Republican platform, why not talk about that rather than Kamala Harris's race?
You understand that to everyone else in the world, including to us, your allies in the rest of the West, that YOU are on the side of discredited totalitarians, yeah?
Not fascist. Not authoritarian. Totalitarian. You'll never recover from the Biden cover up, let alone the last few years of pathological lies fed even unto your allies.
There's also nothing moderate about you, by any other Western country's standards. You're unhinged fuckwits engaged in a comprehensive social re-engineering project, relying on knowledge and skills you don't actually possess. You don't know how to make a smarter more sophisticated culture (and wouldn't really know what that looked like anyway). Instead, you're turning your country into a dangerous shithole, based upon nothing more than your ideological dogmas and intuitions.
You are discredited, and you are ruined.
There are plenty of 'right-wing' sites that discuss Trump's policies, and how they descend from America's Reform party (Perot, Buchanan). That info has been EASILY accessible for years, yet most Americans haven't the foggiest idea that that's so. (Hence why, for example, people, especially 'liberals' and 'progressives' were shocked to see the Teamsters at the recent RNC convention. Were they not actually uninformed parochial fuckwits, despite their core beliefs about themselves, they would not be surprised about that at all.)
Totalitarian? Biden cover up? Talk about a fever dream.
You can't gaslight the whole world anymore.
You're discredited, and you're done. 🙂
With all the time you spend here, like the deranged street preacher at my local subway station, you could be halfway through the first draft of your epic novel about the end of western civilization.
Don't just spoon-feed us with dozens of snippets a day.
Get off your ass and write the damn book already! Fame and fortune sure to be yours!
Funnily enough, Routledge solicited me last July. Their rep came to my faculty office.
It obviously wouldn’t be a NOVEL, though…
I’ll let them know what I decide in the coming months.
"The Trump/Vance ticket is so hollow that this is the only issue they can bring up?"
What makes you think they brought her race up? The press brought up her race, Trump didn't. He speaks for hours at rallies and this event without bringing up race at all, except to mention that blacks (amongst others) would also do better economically under his Administration.
The question he was responding to from a reporter was "Do you believe that Vice-President Kamala Harris is only on the ticket because she is a black woman?"
His actual full response to that question:
"No I think it's maybe a little bit different. So uh, I've known her a long time, indirectly not directly very much, and she was always of Indian Heritage and she was only promoting Indian Heritage. I didn't know she was black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn black and now she wants to be known as black. So, I don't know, is she Indian or is she black?"
" What makes you think they brought her race up? "
You are an ignorant bigot, a stain on America, and the Volokh Conspiracy's target audience.
The "issue" M4 identified was (obviously) Trump's "questioning" of Harris' "blackness".
You responded by claiming that Trump was only responding to a question asked by a reporter, "bringing up her race".
But that question was not about Harris' "blackness". It was about her being a "DEI hire".
(But don't worry, nobody noticed what you did there.)
From the looks of it, Trump made one joke about Harris. He didn't emphasize things at all.
Is the Trump/Vance ticket so blameless that the media has no policy questions to attack? No positions or real scandals? I've seen nothing but personal attacks and over criticism of trivialities.
It reminds me of nothing more than the "Trump said to drink bleach", which was a one-paragraph tangent in a much bigger speech about injecting disinfectants, ending with a statement about how it does a number of your lungs and the moving on. If you read the media, he had waxed lyrically on an hour about how we should all poison ourselves.
These articles are exaggerating his statements to the point of complete falsehood.
In the Mindy Kaling video (Harris did various cooking segments during the campaign), she at one point noted Kaling looked like "half her family." Which is a reference to her mixed heritage.
Funny how someone can have 14% of the comments and have said nothing (guess who that might be).
I'm guessing you or Dr. Ed?
Wrong, as usual.
Mr Bernstein
I stand by my comment on you previous column
You thought your comments would appeal to your audience
Why is the Republican party no more, in its place a nativist cesspool?
Look in the mirror
You and others like you have used this language for decades
Ohh, this is funny, isn't this amusing
The commentary above is the logical end result
'Why is the Republican party no more, in its place a nativist cesspool?'
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Soon, younger blue teamers will take over their party too. It will be unrecognizable to many. That, too, will be a marked improvement.
Your values and political ideals are dying globally. This is no surprise, since they are dog shit.
Weird seeing Professor Bernstein using phrases like "black identity" when he's pointed out the arbitrary nature of racial classifications elsewhere. What is a characteristic of the black identity? Which "black" are we talking about? African Americans? Africans? Latin and South Americans?
I don't agree with a lot of Prof. Bernstein's posts on race, but his position is consistent.
With the proviso that I'm parsing someone else's academic research, he seems to be saying that race is a social construct, and pretty messy. As such, the law with it's bright lines is not well suited to having racial classifications.
Thus, easy to have a concept like black identity, and it will be as messy as your rhetorical questions suggest.
He is not consistent.
He rails about classifications -- unless one particular classification is involved, in which case he contends that classification is the most important point on Earth.
It's partisan, unprincipled, paltry rubbish.
Came here to make a similar point. David has written a fair amount about legal racial classifications and their arbitrary nature, but I don't recall that he has written much directly about race, itself. It seems from many of the comments here that his audience could use a bit of an education on what "race" is, exactly.
Why don't you enlighten us?
Pearls before swine.
noun
1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
Synonyms: breed, line, stock, family, clan, tribe
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology.
a. (no longer in technical use) any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a socially constructed category of identification based on physical characteristics, ancestry, historical affiliation, or shared culture:
Her parents wanted her to marry within her race.
d. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic lineage:
the Slavic race.
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.:
the Dutch race.
“It seems from many of the comments here that his audience could use a bit of an education on what “race” is, exactly.”
Broad genetic clusters that originated due to difficult travel leading to a large degree of genetic isolation, combined with localized selective pressures. They’re presently fading out of existence due to the relentless mixing induced by cheap travel and the human instinct to breed outside your immediate group to avoid recessive genes.
In a few generations our current obsession with race will be a historical curiosity, because there won’t be any races anymore. Well, depending on how germ line genetic engineering interacts with social trends, anyway. There might be different races in a couple hundred years...
This fading process has the Democratic party, which has always organized its politics around racial conflicts, in a bit of a panic. You can even see a growing trend on the left to attack people who racially mix, out of fear that the cleavage lines they’ve exploited for generations are going away.
I think you're wrongly extrapolating the American experience to the world as a whole; maybe in the year 2525 if man is still alive...
This a non-story. Trump was pointing out that Harris has pointed up her A-PI identity to the exclusion of her black identity. Wonder why all you pearl-clutchers didn't give a shit when Biden said that if you don't vote Democratic, you ain't black.
(A) That's not in fact what he said.
(B) If it were, it would be — like everything else he says — a lie. There was precisely no point ever where Kamala Harris did that.
Um, dude, he has the receipts.
Um, dude, the man of
SwedishGerman descent who you, apparently, will defend to the hilt, does not have the receipts. The receipts have been checked and Trump is, as usual, utterly full of shit.I thought this was a reasonable— even banal— take from DB, which I appreciated.
Huckleberry commenters, on the other hand, need to get a grip. It’s still a long way to November, and the trend here is disturbing. I expect more as it becomes clearer that Trump is behind. I expect VP Harris to see a bump in polling after her announcement of a running mate; the contrast with diet Mt. Couch cushion will be stark.
I mean— what’s the next freakout? Mayor Pete not really gay? Shapiro not really a jew (as opposed to a “terrible Jew”)? Whitmer actually Canadian? Mark Kelly didn’t go to space??
I wonder if there’s any part of MAGA that is just really frustrated that their candidates can’t just be normal.
The other day I was listening to some commentary that noticed how odd it was that Trump – the Republican presidential candidate – was doing clean-up in the press for Vance – i.e., the VP pick who’s supposed to bolster his campaign. That is not normal. That’s indicative of a vetting process that was based too much on vibes, on messaging that was too undisciplined. Now you have the comments by Trump in front of the NABJ. Again, bizarrely incompetent.
MAGA is built on a coalition between social conservatives, working middle-class men left behind by our modern economy, and remnants of the Republican elite whose politics are focused on tax cuts and deregulation. A message of economic populism – such as the one that Vance has been developing – should be a winning message. Polling indicates it is on the verge of winning. But the top of the ticket – as well the down-ballot clowns like MTG and Tubby – is just this fumbling mess of incompetence. People in the Biden camp were asking themselves, this whole campaign – how is beating Trump so hard? MAGA should be asking themselves the same question, about Trump/Vance. If these guys win, it will be despite their incompetence and missteps, not because of their shrewd political skill.
I wonder if there’s any part of MAGA that is just really frustrated that their candidates can’t just be normal.
I think for core MAGA the lack of norm and normal is the point. They may be more frustrated that the rest of us fail to acknowledge Trump's stability and genius and that we don't see why he's right.
“That’s indicative of a vetting process that was based too much on vibes, on messaging that was too undisciplined.”
I attribute it to hubris, greed for all the cryptobro cash and— above all— taking advice from someone Trump correctly observed in the past as having “the worst judgement of anyone in the world.”
Scott Lemieux had a post the other day about the concept of a “banked win.” That is— the contest appears so lopsided that the winning side prematurely conceives of it as being over and done with. I believe the sports example used was Super Bowl LI— Atlanta up 28-3 in the 3rd quarter only to lose 34-28. The process of seeing the banked win slip away is agonizing and psychologically brutal. This is the reason that the freak outs are going to get increasingly frantic. That is what we are seeing with MAGA now, and it’s only going to get worse— especially for Trump himself because all of a sudden in addition to everything else, the specter of actual incarceration is also back on the table.
Which is why I found the Scaramucci tweet from the other day less improbable than many others.
‘I wonder if there’s any part of MAGA that is just really frustrated that their candidates can’t just be normal’.
Your President isn’t compos mentis. Your blue team is now exposed as being implicated in a comprehensive social re-engineering scheme, one that seeks replacement conceptions of gender, sex, and other forms of identity, all in furtherance of an evolutionarily inferior meme. Indeed, it’s so obviously an inferior one that it relies on mass foreign immigration to prop up the system; you need the illegal aliens PRECISELY BECAUSE they don’t believe what you do.
You’re not normal. You’re totalitarian freaks. The rest of the world is pretty much in agreement about this.
Now, the reasons for the missteps—the real ones, not the ones your media wishes to classify as such as part of a delegitimization strategy and to defend their political thought and speech preferences—are fairly clear: Trump is not just an amateur, but is also hated by the American red team.
Trump’s comments weren’t incompetent at all. They’re a direct challenge to your core identity-politics: what you consider to be morally and politically acceptable to discuss and think, what you wish to exclude from public discourse as a matter of propriety, etc. He is trying to shift the Overton window.
Hopefully he doesn’t just succeed, but also puts people like you into mortal danger. 🙂
Harris was picked and promoted because of identity politics. If she were a White man, should would be nowhere. She is the DEI candidate, and it is appropriate to comment on it.
She is not really Black. Just look at her. She doesn't even look Black. She is half Jamaican and half Hindu.
And for years a major qualification - indeed, the #1 qualification - for being a presidential candidate was being a white male - but somehow that isn't identity politics.
"And for years a major qualification – indeed, the #1 qualification – for being a presidential candidate was being a white male – but somehow that isn’t identity politics."
Who said it wasn't identity politics?
If identity politics were clearly recognised from the get-go, no-one would even bother to mention it as it would be a normal part of politics. Hence when someone whinges that making Kamala VP was identity politics it is safe to assume that they don't think of nominating white males as identity politics.
Do you think that only nominating white males was identity politics?
Spare me your fucking DEI inclusive bullshit. They DIDN'T pick 'white' males. It all went downhill with the Kraut in '52, and then obviously with the Mick in '60.
And if YOU don't think that they thought in precisely those terms, then you're just ignorant about American history.
The White males were the best candidates.
The White males were the best candidates.
amongst the available pool of white males
If presidents could only be selected from members of the Diogenes Club, let's say, and only white males were permitted to join the Diogenes Club, certainly, electing the best candidate from the Diogenes Club would be choosing the best candidate available.
Think of how much better the USA would have been, if only George Washington had been a Black woman.
Did you ever read Gray's Elegy in a Country Churchyard?
MAGA brain rot in action.
"Kamala was chosen just for being Black. But also she is not really Black, which you can tell by just looking at her. Also, 'Jamaican' and 'Hindu' are races, not a nationality and a religion, respectively."
Category of "weird": "Irrational, ignorant, and possibly in cognitive decline."
It's so weird how you American fuckwits have been using the term 'weird' excessively the last couple of weeks...
Keep going high when they go low, Yankee Doodle!
“She is not really Black”
Why do you do this? Is it compulsive?
If anyone is a DEI candidate— it’s Diet Mt Dew. Strip out their identities and just compare their resumes. Which one would you say was being hired on the basis of something other than credentials?
Vance can discuss issues intelligently. Harris cannot.
Well then perhaps Vance should be the GOP candidate...
He would be if we'd nominated a Brain Dead corpse like Parkinsonian Joe
Sure, like how childless cat ladies should be punished. Totally intelligent.
So you are against child tax deductions and credits?
Hahahahahaha, you should have checked on what Senate Republicans were up to yesterday before you tried this brain-dead retort:
“Senate Republicans blocked legislation Thursday to cut taxes for working families and extend some corporate tax breaks… The $79 billion legislation would have expanded eligibility for the child tax credit, or CTC, among the lowest-income families and adjusted payments for inflation for the 2024 and 2025 filing years.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/08/01/child-tax-credit-expansion-senate-republicans/
They're an evolutionarily inferior meme.
They, and their values, are going to ride off into the sunset.
Inferior.
Unequal.
Futureless.
What issues? Childless cat ladies are secretly miserable with their own lives? Writing blurbs for the pizzagate guy’s book? Boasting about drinking Diet Mt Dew?
“discuss issues intelligently”
If this is truly an important issue for you, I am confused about your voting preference. Sharks, electrocution, the late great Hannibal Lecter, airports in the revolutionary war, injecting disinfectant, shine a light in your lungs, Nikki Haley and the Capitol police, windmills drive whales crazy— this is just what I could come up with in like 10 seconds.
Trump and Vance do talk about issues of great concern to this nation. Biden and Harris do not, and rarely even take questions from the press.
Schlafly's about 5 minutes from resorting to craniometry to describe her.
LOL good one!
Compare and contrast Conservapedia’s entries:
https://www.conservapedia.com/Kamala_Harris
Kamala Devi Harris[2] (b. 1964, she/her) also known as Krazy Kamala, ¡Qué mala![3] or Biden’s No. 2, is the undemocratically selected Presidential nominee of the American Democrat party whom nobody voted for.
And it gets “better” from there…
And
https://www.conservapedia.com/J.D._Vance
Conservative of the Year 2023
James David Vance (born in August 2, 1984; age 39) is an American conservative populist senator and Marine combat veteran from Ohio, who was nominated to be the vice president on Trump’s ticket in the 2024 presidential election.
To be fair, that's the brainchild [sic] of the other ne'er do well son, not Roger.
Dude, we have her on tape saying she wants to ban fracking and private health insurance and supporting defunding the police, abolishing ICE, and going door to door confiscating guns. Maybe we should be focusing on that?
We should, but nobody thinks that she knew what she was talking about when she said those things, or that her opinions even matter. She is just a DEI puppet. Others are making her decisions for her. I expect that her VP choice will be dictated to her.
Roger S, I must once again ask you to please, please, please stop helping.
Like asking cats to avoid the catnip.
If MAGA were capable of doing that, they wouldn't be MAGA.
She is not really Black. Just look at her. She doesn’t even look Black. She is half Jamaican and half Hindu.
My black wife would like a word about what Harris is and how she looks. You really need to get out more.
And how can someone be "half Jamaican" (a national origin, which isn't even hers -- she was born in the United States) and "half Hindu" (a religion, which isn't even hers -- she seems to be a Baptist)?
Jamaican and Hindu are races?
The Rule of Goats applies to this business of policing who is really black. You're a goatfucker whether you're doing it originally, reactively, earnestly, or ironically.
Lot of goatfuckers these days.
And even if you only do it once, per the joke. But goatfuckers gonna fuck goats...
What a tiresome business this racial identity politics crap is. We now have to debate whether Kamala Harris is really black, authentically black or whatever. Frankly, I don't care.
IMO, the Biden administration has been a disaster in many ways, and Kamala Harris will give more of the same, if not worse. That's what I care about, whether her skin color is white, brown or purple.
We now have to debate whether Kamala Harris is really black, authentically black or whatever
We don’t have to. We can merely declare Trump a racist and bigot who should fuck off, and his supporters who defend his comments likewise, and move on.
Thanks for your sarcasm. Trump is pointing out what a mess racial politics is. In his usual crude, gutter style. So you can f--- off.
I wasn't being sarcastic.
Trump is not pointing out what a mess racial politics is. Trump is attacking Kamala on grounds of race and his defenders, yourself included, are engaging in that ever-popular pastime, rationalising and re-interpreting Trump's statements to remove the lies, racism and bigotry and to depict him as an admittedly crude truth-teller.
Maybe you can review some of the other MAGA commenters, because it seems like they have a different interpretation of his comments. Many evidently agree with the less contorted take, which is that Trump was accusing Kamala of being hypocritical and opportunistic in selectively invoking her heritage: "not really Black."
Trump is not pointing out the mess of racial politics here using it to attack his opponent. Trump is enlightening you his using you, there is a difference.
FFS. If Trump wanted to point out that racial politics is a mess, he would have said so. He wants to debate Harris' racial identity.
Trump would have preferred to avoid the issue, but he was asked a question that raised a bunch of rude racial issues.
It was not rude to ask Trump whether he thought Harris was a DEI hire.
It was practically a softball question! Do bears shit in the woods-level… And yet, he didn't even answer it.
What he obviously wasn’t asked was, “is Kamala Harris really Black?”
Thanks for your sarcasm. Trump is pointing out what a mess racial politics is. In his usual crude, gutter style. So you can f— off.
No, this is Trump pissing his pants to point out that his pants are not waterproof.
I thought you smart enough to bow out of this game. Somehow this is irresistible to Trump folks, and they all gotta make it weird.
In other words, you're a useful idiot excusing Trump's latest display of racism.
His history of being a racist fuckhead goes back several decades. Perhaps it's a bit past time for people like you to wake the fuck up and stop being ignorant, idiotic mouthpieces.
Alternatively, they can correctly challenge YOUR LOT’S classification of what he said as being ‘racist’ and/or ‘bigoted’.
They can see how he’s trying the shift the Overton window. They can learn more about racial political discourses are structured, and weaponized, in the USA.
And then they might seek revenge against people like you for foisting and/or supporting that totalitarian garbage down their throats (in an effort to police and manipulate thought and speech, to socially re-engineer a new society).
And I reckon they will.
The moderators here don’t like it when someone earnestly suggests here that suicide, for yourself and your family, is probably your best option. But the—contested and contestable—norms about that could shift over time too.
"Trump is pointing out what a mess racial politics is."
This is beneath you. At least I hope.
'We' can?
What about declaring you to be a totalitarian fraud instead?
The problem with you Americans using the term 'bigotry' is that the cognate notion includes (a) an inability to onboard new information and (b) some level of ignorance as driving belief, making erroneous judgments and assumptions.
But now that people can see that you regularly use the term simply for holding a group or belief system in disesteem, even when there are good grounds to do so, INCLUDING in the face of credible information, AND when you yourself exhibit contemptuous views about half your own countrymen as people, they can see your usage's being inapt.
Nay, more than that, they are beginning to see how it has been WEAPONIZED---like so many other terms in your totalitarian American political discourses---by morons. You think they're ignorant; they see they're not.
And given what you've done to their country, and given that they're better able to detect your totalitarian manipulation tactics, they're likely going to kill you for it. 🙂
"Their" country?
And describing someone as a bigot when they're a bigot is hardly "authoritarian" - and your use of the term in this context suggests that you're merely throwing out insults unsupported by argument.
Yes, theirs, of course; you're just parasites in it, doing your best to ruin the institutions and structures they made. However, you're likely to be fumigated out VERY soon.
'And describing someone as a bigot when they’re a bigot is hardly “authoritarian” – and your use of the term in this context suggests that you’re merely throwing out insults unsupported by argument'.
Circular reasoning. Moreover, I didn't say it was authoritarian. I called you totalitarians, trying to police thought and speech---not that you understand the difference.
And your charge is DOUBLY ironic. 1, because it's arguments, not insults, which require support, and 2, because that's precisely what you do with the 'bigotry' accusations.
Not that an American idiot such as yourself understands irony, of course.
"Why can't we just debate the policies" says the Trump supporter, after months of a campaign where the primary talking point was "Biden is old" and an appearance by Trump where he made it about race.
Fuck all of you MAGA asshats. Democrats have been wanting to talk about policy from the beginning. You are the ones who have continued to pull us into these digressive debates about reality and stupid point-scoring, and the reason why is that you can't win on policy. MAGA doesn't have a plan for inflation, they don't have a plan for immigration apart from a massively disruptive deportation program that would pick up a lot of people that most Americans would want to protect (Dreamers, genuine asylum seekers, spouses of legal residents that entered illegally, workers filling an identified need, etc.), they don't have a plan for housing prices, they don't have a plan for gas prices apart from increasing dependency on petroleum and gas products, they don't have a plan for wage growth. Their big pitch is another massive, unfunded tax cut for the wealthy, which will be subsidized this time by cutting Medicare and Social Security and increasing the retirement age. None of that is popular, so of course the plan is to have Trump just riff and you little stooges will take away whatever it is you personally want to believe, like it's some kind of political Rorschach test.
"Wasn't it better under Trump?" is the only policy message MAGA has ever tried to promote. So fuck all the way off. You guys made politics a clown show. Now you're worried you won't win the clown show, because it's no longer King Clown vs. Sleepy Joe, and want to pretend to be serious now.
Honestly, bring it. Let Americans see the choice: work until you die for subsistence wages, while Christian conservatives reshape society in their own image - or not. Great plan.
DEI is the biggest and most important policy for Democrats. They talk about it all the time. They brag about their Black woman appointments. Harris was picked, by all accounts, because she could present herself as a Black woman.
Do we really want the President to be a DEI appointment? No.
Do we want the President to be a useless, massively dishonest, incompetent, habitual liar and racist? No.
And yet he is.
He's also non-compos mentis. He's a puppet. Your system isn't what it claims to be, and that's now clear for the whole world to see.
You're evil, you're discredited, and you're posturing means nothing to educated, civilised people in the rest of the world.
Obviously you were in one of Trump's "camps" during his four years as president.
'Fuck all of you MAGA asshats. Democrats have been wanting to talk about policy from the beginning'.
Donald Trump moved economically to the left of Hilary Clinton. That's why he won in 2016. MAGA inherited the politics of Perot and Buchanan, which is why the Donald even got involved with Reform (howsoever tendentiously).
Literally no one in the rest of the world believes your shit anymore. Even if they hate Trump personally, they can see that YOU'RE fake---and totalitarian.
It is your blue teamers and establishment red teamers that have done EVERYTHING they can to avoid discussing real policies: free trade agreements, the shrinking middle class and the ACTUAL effects of mass illegal immigration of unskilled illterate poor, abysmal domestic birth rates, the American empire and its viability, military misadventures and military presence across the globe, the end of the Petrodollar.
Even when you say shit like 'most' people wanting to protect illegals and provide policies for them, YOU CAN'T reconcile that with what your actual labour laws, your health and safety laws, your immigration laws. THE FUNDAMENTAL CONTRADICTIONS in blue team and never-Trumper policies are consciously avoided, in both your press and your public discourses.
I nevertheless can assure you that the rest of the world is fully aware of these things. That why we KNOW that you're full of shit.
I'd suggest that you should off yourself, but it's seems ever more likely that your better Americans will make that choice for you. 🙂 Don't run away to our more civilised countries. We will NOT tolerate you.
We now have to debate whether Kamala Harris is really black, authentically black or whatever.
We don't have to. The Republicans have made a gigantic issue out this nonsense, not the Democrats.
And no, Biden has not been "a disaster in many ways." The economy is doing just fine. Inflation is a concern, but there's more to the picture than that, and if you're worried about that, or other economic trainwrecks, you should be running away from Trump as fast as your feet will carry you.
'And no, Biden has not been “a disaster in many ways.” The economy is doing just fine. Inflation is a concern, but there’s more to the picture than that, and if you’re worried about that, or other economic trainwrecks, you should be running away from Trump as fast as your feet will carry you'.
Just curious if you think any educated people in the rest of the world believe any of that malarkey about your country's state of affairs. Are you just an idiot, or also a pathological liar?
Every educated person believes that, which — of course — excludes you.
You just aren't even trying anymore. You OK?
Take the bets. It'll only improve your situation.
This whole pathetic kerfuffle is the apotheosis of the politics of identity rather than the politics of policy.
I agree, but it is the Republicans who sent the whole campaign in that direction, by deciding that criticizing Harris over racial identity was the way to go.
Which anti-Harris camp are you in:
1) She is not really black, so Trump spoke the truth people don't want to admit to (plus, the optional belief she is a DEI hire - unqualified/incompetent, chosen only because of her race).
2) She's black, but cynically uses her identity when it suits her, so Trump spoke a different truth than in #1 (plus, the optional belief she is a DEI hire).
3) Please stop with the racial shit and concentrate on her record and positions.
Those in the third camp believe that pushing #1 or #2 will Trump's chances. In a rational world, that would be the case (especially since Trump had been making some inroads with black voters). But with Trump, rationality often doesn't apply.
I would like to stop with the racial preference arguments, but that is all Harris has going for her. Nobody thinks that she is competent, or would be where she is otherwise. And she is not even really Black, or a natural born citizen with citizen parents.
Translation: I wish I could be in Camp #3, but I am compelled to be in Camp #1 with DEI-hire added in. And as a bonus, I am a natural-born citizen crank.
Nepo baby says what?
Nepo baby does not mean one is incompetent.
That is so true. Look at Don Jr.!
Wait— that might not be a good example
You left out the kitchen sink approach: she’s not black, and she’s using her blackness cynically, and Trump told the truth about her blackness, but also he was clearly just joking about her blackness.
To be fair, the Trump supporters are in a difficult position. They have to back him up no matter what, but they really don’t know what the hell he meant. (He might not have known himself.) So cover all the bases.
There’s no requirement that MAGAs think consistently, anymore than those possibly apocryphal Middle Easterners simultaneously declaring 9/11 a triumph and accusing Zionists of responsibility.
I've lost count of the number of times over the last 9 years that we've seen the Trump dance:
1. Trump says something outrageous, hateful, etc.
2. Decent people call him out for that.
3. Trump's supporters rush to explain how he didn't really mean that, he was just joking, the mean ol' liberals are misinterpreting him, etc.
4. Trump comes out and says, "No, actually I did mean the outrageous thing. So nyah, nyah."
For anyone else, their political career would have ended long, long ago. But after 9 years, we still have Trump. While he is unpopular and other Republicans have lost more than they should have since 2016 thanks to Trump, it's a 50-50 shot he wins. That's effin crazy.
The Republican problem is that they depend on the Trump cultists as a huge part of their voting base. They would lose more without Trump than they have lost with Trump.
You're right should be 90/10 (that 10% of the population who are mentally retarded)
Leaving aside the absurdity you have to be mentally retarded to be opposed to Trump, you have to be innumerate to equate a 90% chance of winning with getting 90% of the vote.
Just like in January 20, 2017, "45" will take 100% of the Oath of Orifice on January 20, 2025. And the Marxist Stream Media will lie about the size of the Crowd
Frank
I think my favourite instance was the Greenland story. Trump says he wants to buy Greenland, he's mocked for it, his supporters say he was joking and that his critics have no sensayuma, whereupon Trump says no, he was serious, and his supporters now insist it's a great idea.
Buying Greenland was a good idea. Denmark has no good use for it.
Yes it was and is a good idea as was McKinley's purchase of Alaska. The Arctic will become much more important in the future as witnessed by China's attempt to claim an interest there.
McKinley's purchase? You're off by several decades.
Seward's Folly, 1867. Had Mt McKinley in mind.
However, I otherwise stand by my comment
Trump supporters know what he meant because they live in reality. LIberals construct a universe that serves their immediate goals. For example all the Leftists pretending that race doesn't matter and only merit does and this is the way it always has been, when speaking about Kamala.
The Left tremendously cares about identity and identity politics. Trump exposed her hypocrisy in his own biting way. With ridicule and exaggeration.
In the Leftists mind, Kamala never was celebrated as the first Indian woman Senator when talking about her being possibly the first female Black president.
(2) and (3) are not contradictory. My preference is (3), but so long as the Democrats insist on playing a two-faced game -- "it's a plus that KH would be the first black woman president, but don't you dare mention it, you racist" -- it's legitimate to call them out on their cynical manipulations.
By the plain text explanation of choice #3 (stop with the racial shit), they are contradictory. It appears you are in Camp #2. Would you like to supersize that with the DEI-hire addition?
Keep up the garbage. "Stop with the racial stuff" only works if both sides agree to drop it. The Dems are not doing that, so (2) remains a legitimate argument.
Sorry, I don’t believe in unilateral disarmament.
BTW, what do you think of Joe Biden’s “You ain’t black” comment back in 2020?
As I sai, you are in Camp #2. Would you like to DEI-hire supersize that?
I hated Biden's comment.
I think the issue here is legitimate != smart.
But a lot of folks here, even you, seem driven by some kind of compulsion that is not about smart politics.
Great call, Sacrastr0.
It isn't smart politics for a political opponent to highlight hypocrisy and vulnerabilities in their opponents!
Get that, you stupid MAGA types! Be smart and only focus on Kamalas strengths! If you can't find one, make it up like we do!
Roughly 100% of the people who buying into the narrative that this is a "vulnerability" made up their minds years ago, so it's not about changing anyone from Harris to Trump.
However, you might still have a point. Some Trump supporters seem to need a new attack line every 72 hours or so to keep themselves motivated. It probably also helps with donations.
>so it’s not about changing anyone from Harris to Trump.
Right. It’s about hoisting the Left on their own petard and trying to reach the millions of undecideds who don’t pay particular attention to the details, but do get exposed when some viral meme, or stray voltage hits their windshield.
>: Some Trump supporters seem to need a new attack line every 72 hours or so to keep themselves motivated. It probably also helps with donations.
Haha yeah, the Harris campaign doesn’t come up with new attack lines! That’s only what those weirdo’s do!! Harumph, what sort of political strategist even attacks their opponents?!?!? Don’t they know smart politics, ala Sacastr0 style politics?
I'm sure you'll be pleased to learn that Biden, within minutes, acknowledged he shouldn't have said what he said. Meanwhile, the guy you eagerly shed your dignity for brags that he never apologizes and doubles down when called out on, for example, saying Jews who vote for Democrats hate their religion. Don't be such a tool for this asshole.
"I’m sure you’ll be pleased to learn that Biden, within minutes, acknowledged he shouldn’t have said what he said."
Is that so? How many minutes? And did he offer any explanation or clarification?
I take it as something of an inverted Praeteritio, something Biden does all the time - says something, then says something right after to the effect of 'I shouldn't have said that,' or 'I'm going to get in trouble.' But, the comment is launched, and, as they say, you can't unring the bell.
I have never heard Biden say that. Trump, on the other hand, does that all the time. And variations like, "Many people are saying [something really offensive]. I don't know whether it's true or not. I can't say it. But many people are."
According to this account, it was "hours", rather than "minutes":
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/us/politics/joe-biden-black-breakfast-club.html
"Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, apologized Friday afternoon for telling a radio host that black voters torn between voting for him and President Trump “ain’t black,” remarks that ignited a firestorm online.
“I shouldn’t have been such a wise guy,” Mr. Biden said in a call with the U.S. Black Chambers. “I shouldn’t have been so cavalier.” He later said that he had not been expected to join the call, a possible sign of a hastily arranged appearance.
Mr. Biden’s remarks came hours after a testy exchange with Charlamagne Tha God, a host on “The Breakfast Club,” a nationally syndicated morning show popular with black millennials. In the interview, during which the former vice president sidestepped a question about marijuana legalization and his running mate selection, Mr. Biden also made clear that he felt there was no reason black Americans would consider voting for Mr. Trump.
“If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump then you ain’t black,” Mr. Biden said.
The remark sparked immediate pushback on social media, with liberal activists and conservatives alike jumping on Mr. Biden, 77, for acting as the arbiter of blackness. His words also exposed wounds among Democrats that date to 2016, when many leaders felt the party took black voters for granted.
“I don’t take it for granted at all,” he said later Friday. “No one, no one, should have to vote for any party based on their race, their religion, their background. There are African-Americans who think that Trump was worth voting for. I don’t think so, I’m prepared to put my record against his. That was the bottom line and it was, it was really unfortunate.”"
That's a really stupid trichotomy, in a world where people can be mixed races and cynically changing which side of themselves they concentrate on, to distract from their record and positions.
She's black, she's Indian, she's a desert topping AND a floor wax. And she wants us to care about anything but her record and her positions.
Weirdly, Trump seems to be focusing on anything but her record and her positions, instead discussing whether she's really black.
people can be mixed races and cynically changing which side of themselves they concentrate on, to distract from their record and positions.
You can call it cynical or insincere or whatever you want, it's seems to look a lot like how race works to normal people.
How about this camp,
She's a totalitarian who advances identity politics, has cynically exploited and framed her identity to advance herself, and she helped to gaslight the world about your current president's lack of mental fitness for some time. She's also an advocate and agent of an ill-conceived social re-engineering programme. Hence, she's on the side of totalitarianism and so, necessarily, on the wrong side of history.
So are you, for that matter, you evil piece of shit.
So Clarence Thomas, allegedly isn't authentically black because he didn't live the black experience.
How is Kamala different in this regard?
…or for that matter Obama?
Born in Hawaii, raised in Indonesia.
“Born in Hawaii”
Careful now, that’s RINO talk
No, his African Chieftain father sent an in Utero Barry and Mrs Hussain to Hawaii so he wouldn’t have to deal with them. Wow, I was trying to be Snarky, but that’s actually what happened
.
As I wrote elsewhere, Kamala, as the child of a Jamaican of African descent and an Indian, is technically a dugla (I checked with a dugla friend just to be sure). Now there are two interesting things about that.
First, the word "dugla" itself comes from Hindi, and means "a mix" generally, but specifically was applied to the rare offspring of a leopard and a lion or tiger.
Second, it is the only word for a person of mixed race that I know of that is not pejorative - if anything, it's complimentary, as it is widely held in places like T&T that duglas tend to be better looking than average
That's actually why my Filipina wife married me; She said she'd seen the kids of Filipino/American marriages, and they were all good looking and smart. She wanted that for her kids.
Hybrid vigor, it's a real thing.
Of course, so is reversion to the mean, as Harris demonstrates.
One of the biggest "45" Supporters I know is a Filipina Physical Therapist (married to a Black USMC Officer, so put that in your Pre-Conception Pipe and Smoke it)
Paid her out of pocket when I had the Rotator Cuff done in 16' and not just because she's attractive and gives great shoulder rubs (Key to Shoulder Surgery recovery)Remember when she was so worried that a tape was about to come out with "45" using the N-word (She's so sweet, that's how she said it, whispering "The N-word")
Turned out it was only the "Access Hollyweird" Tape, and as Paul Harvey would say, you know the "Rest of the Story"
Still see her for a "Tune Up" occasionally, and she's even more MAGA than ever (her lucky SOB husband too)
Frank
The Philippines' two largest exports: Wives and medical professionals... Often in the same package. My wife is a surgical dentistry assistant.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/02/us/las-vegas-teens-plead-guilty/index.html
What's offensive is that 3 feral blacks and 1 feral Hispanic beat a white classmate to death in a racially motivated attack, and the Associated Press doesn't name them when they get a sweetheart deal.
Blacks have it so easy in this country. They're given all sorts of unjustified privileges and never held accountable when they fuck up.
For those who don’t have time to click the CNN link and coverage at other sites, pansenmaria left out the part where both the police and the videos indicate the victim started the fight. Pansenmaria also added “racially motivated” on his own, it’s not in the linked story.
“ Pansenmaria also added “racially motivated” on his own”
Oh that’s just for a little extra voltage
That’s what the Police said about Emmet Till also, so now you "Back the Blue"?!?!?!?!
"Started"
In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, I don't think that word means what you think it means as it was mutually agreed upon combat. The actual series of events were that one of the
four stole his friends stuff, and when he demanded them back, they said he could fight them for it. So he went to the alley, and instead of fighting with any modicum of honor, which I guess you shouldn't expect from thieves, when the fight started instead of one at a time they all fought him at the same time, dragged him to the ground, and then proceeded to curbstomp him. So not only are they murderers, they're thieves as well.
Huh. Good post, Prof. Bernstein. No notes.
Ironically, the comments are more vituperative and racist than usual.
Gosh, it seems like decades ago Wuzzie was ripping me for saying Speaker Mike didn’t understand the zeitgeist when he made his “lay off the DEI” statement.
Anglos and Europeans created racial categories and of course used them to commit all manner of atrocities against people who weren't white. White Americans took these racial categories and ran with them, obsessed by them in order to prop up slavery, then Jim Crow.
Then, of course, when non-white people use those racial categories as an identity to assert their own human dignity or fight for more just treatment, white conservatives cry "identity politics!" and accuse liberals--a group far more concerned with the dignified treatment of people of color--of being obsessed with race. They only like racial categories as a means for oppression, never as a means of liberation.
Of course, white conservatives today are so ignorant of racial history and how the idea of race even came to be, that they can't help showing their asses on the topic every chance they get.
How’d the Arab slave trade of Black Africans and Hindus, which long predates the European classifications, work?
What’s so fascinating, as a scholar, is reading sophomoric American LIES—particularly in crit theoretical and sociological works—about the putative genealogy of the concept of ‘race’ and the (demonstrably false) claims of its essential tie to European capitalism.
Of course, Americans don’t give a shit about their academics advancing post-truth, low-grade propaganda, especially if can be used to make present-day political gains.
One perfect example of this is the evolution of ‘whiteness’, and how that gets washed over/abused in much of the contemporary literature. It’s especially difficult to explain the English slave market of the Irish (sold in Bristol, sold as slaves elsewhere), the Viking slave trade of fellow Europeans into the Arabian world and elsewhere, etc, using the contemporary American lens about race and racial categories—including your country’s literature about the history of race, ie the pseudo-scholarly claims about peoples' conceptions of race in the past and in other countries. (It’s also hard to explain why the Germans wanted a lebensraum free of Slavic untermenschen, and why the Anglosphere had far more restrictive categories of immigration—the idea of letting in ANY ‘white’ Europeans in would have been deemed insane in most of those settler colonies for most of their histories.)
But, of course, your lot DOESN’T CARE that that’s so. It doesn’t care about the real history, since you’re not motivated by the pursuit of the truth, accurate scholarship, etc. Whole swathes of American work products, particularly in these areas, is basically the simulacrum of academic scholarship and knowledge production. It is also the simulacrum of political discourses aiming at TRUTH-to-power.
You’re a joke. Fortunately, you’re increasingly seen to be so, globally.
This trolling is a little better, but long. I like the use of the word simulacrum, that was kind of cute. But try to be more concise next time.
You're giving stylistic commentary, as if I actually respect what you think about anything? Weird.
The Last VP to get his party's nomination without getting a single primary Vote, Humbert Hornblower Humphrey, must be feeling pretty good right now, ((Dr.) Hunter S. Thompson famously said Humbert should be "Put in a Goddamn bottle and sent out with the Japanese Current". All that's missing to make it 1968 all over is Sirhan Sirhan Jr to shoot RFK Jr. (RFK Jr not getting Secret Service Protection looking pretty prescient)
Frank
Sargent Shriver?
Humphrey got primary votes.
It’s beside the point— he just wanted to throw out the Hunter Thompson quote… again
True, and I love mangling Humpty Humphrey’s name (Hey, if Jimmuh Cartuh could do it at the 1980 DemoKKKrat Convention….)
but it’s a great quote, so yes, I may be guilty of replaying it a few times,
so you’ve never used “What Rough Beast, Her hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem…”????
You think Yeats wrote that Poem as a throw away?
Used to use that quote when my youngest daughter would wake up hungover, late (8am was late if you had me for a Dad) with a big Tennis match only a few hours away…
It's why my Daughters both have Engineering Degrees from (The)Georgia Institute of Technology, not to be confused with that poser school in Massachusetts) Because I exposed them to Yeats
on a regular basis
Don’t hate me because I’m more ed-jew-ma-cated (and richer, better looking, more athletic) than you
Frank
Double Dip, Humpy Hump was really a pathetic piece of shit, remember how he tried to steal the 72' Nomination from McGovern at the last minute? (Hilary Rodman tried the same shit in 08', trying to steal Barry Osama's Michigan Delegates) Running as the "Peace Candidate" in 68' while every week thousands of Americans dying for his bullshit war, I'd put his career right up there with Hitler, Stalin, the Ayatollah Khomeni, and Bin Laden.
"Fear and Loathing" is a great book, if you don't read it at least once a year (Like I do with "For Whom the Bell Tolls", "Death in the Afternoon" and OK, "Christine"(Don't like Steven King's politics, but he writes a great page turner, Jeez, now I'm sounding like Larry King's old "USA Today" column...
Frank "...Nothing like a Coney Island Dog at Citi Field..."(Hate the Mets, love the park/dogs)
“Sirhan Sirhan”
You know, Frank— for someone who compared himself to Faulkner the other day… you sure do recycle a lot of material
Like Willy F said
"The Past is never Dead, it's not even Past"
giving you the benefit of the Doubt, I'm sure you wrote that ironically knowing I'd respond with that great Quote, OTOH you might just be an un-ed-jew-ma-cated Rube
Frank
The top headline on nytimes.com is: "Live Election Updates: Harris Has Votes Needed to Be Nominee, D.N.C. Says
The party chair said she had won enough delegates to secure the nomination, setting up Kamala Harris to become the first Black woman and person of South Asian heritage to earn the top spot on a major political ticket for president."
So that's it. Her top qualification is being the first Black woman. Then South Asian heritage. And she somehow got the nomination, in an undemocratic process.
Nope; it was an entirely democratic process. She got the votes of a majority of delegates. Same way anyone else gets a presidential nomination.
"Democratic" is doing a lot of work there
If she wanted to attend a fundraiser for her own campaign, would she go to the one for black women, or Asians? (Apparently, Asian women must combine with Asian men, but blacks are segregated by sex.)
“I’ll have a brewski, Charlie”
Please tell us what you thought of Native American Senator Elizabeth Warren . On the naked proposition, IS Trump right about Kamala ? I would say 'yes". We need a godly Christian President to represent the heritage of our country. We are what Lincoln said:
Address to the New Jersey State Senate
Trenton, New Jersey
February 21, 1861
" I am exceedingly anxious that this Union, the Constitution, and the liberties of the people shall be perpetuated in accordance with the original idea for which that struggle was made, and I shall be most happy indeed if I shall be an humble instrument in the hands of the Almighty, and of this, his almost chosen people, for perpetuating the object of that great struggle. "
Please, don't let your hates be stronger than your loves.
It is really sad how Harris is forcing you all to keep talking about her race, while not letting your focus on the issues.
After reading the average day's content at the Volokh Conspiracy, do any of you clingers genuinely believe UCLA, Northwestern, and other legitimate schools are wrong to prefer faculties devoid of Federalist Society members and other right-wing extremists?
Strong schools didn't get that way by appeasing childish superstition, conservative bigotry, belligerent ignorance, and right-wing backwardness.
AIDS, do you think most of the folks at the schools you mentioned would even QUALIFY for an entry-level position at better unis in more civilised countries?
Do you think most of their scholarship is even trusted, let alone respected, outside of the United States?
Look at this most recent effort at PROJECTION, which was just emailed to me, as but one example. Look at its specific claims and how it 'tries' to justify them. They're not merely falsified by ANY honest examination of the empirical data about the social sciences and humanities (and not just the law schools). It's claims are exactly the the opposite of the truth, as evidenced by (for example) the express, RECORDED testimony of key critical theorist scholars about their mission to plant people in faculties and to gain power. If you know anything about this, then you'll know which Ivy league charlatans committed this to posterity.
The linked paper is a great example your post-truth, sophomoric, identity-politics-driven, American scholarship produced at your 'top' law schools. THIS is why, no one, irrespective of their politics, can trust your legal academic work products. This is why you are DISCREDITING yourselves.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4909390
STRONGER law schools. HA! Orwellian claptrap is not to be lauded. It's to be met instead with scorn, condemnation, and an effective response to thwart its production and perpetuation.
You're not just on the side of the rank amateurs, AIDS. You're irrefutably on the side of the bad guys. You're an enemy of real knowledge production, of high-quality, high-functioning universities, and of genuine progress.
No flowery language will help to cloak you from the world now. It's now clear what you and your lot truly are.
Which "more civilised" countries do you have in mind?
More important, why do you hate modern America?
Is it the preference for reason over superstition?
The preference for diversity and inclusive over old-timey right-wing bigotry?
The economic, military, and political strength, perhaps a point of resentment elsewhere in the world?
The liberal-libertarian mainstream's defeat of conservatism in the modern American culture war?
The fading of childish superstition in American life?
Is it something as basic as American grocers -- led by the world's best store -- and their remarkable quality, safety, convenience, service, and selection?
Name ANY Western European country or the British colonies.
I don’t hate modern America.
I hate fraudulent imperialist parochial stooges in America who systematically misrepresent their totalitarian inclinations as being knowledge- and reason-based.
As any educated, reason-prioritising, and freedom-loving person would and should, I am disgusted by how your lot misrepresents your evolutionarily inferior meme as somehow constituting a form of progress in the face of OVERWHELMING (empirical and other) evidence that it isn’t.
Apropos that, your conceits about your identity are demonstrably false. Your lot simply doesn’t care that that’s so BECAUSE y’all aren’t truth-oriented. That makes you despicable. (Think here, for example, just about how you don’t REALLY want robust inclusivity and diversity; you have neither a credible metric for this, nor good empirical grounds—and you certainly DON’T wish to normalize many beliefs and groups anyway.)
I look down upon your inferior culture output: it’s trash because you are. Perhaps you wish to rationalise its low quality as an effort in being more ‘inclusive’. But the truth is that your liberal American culture is incapable of producing what Western Europeans did and can. Your finest outputs are/were from poor American blacks, Anglo-Saxon Boston Brahim more than a century ago, and some Southern Celt writers. Your liberal mainstream culture other produces, and has always produced, pablum.
More importantly, like most of the world (and across much of the political spectrum) I loathe your ruining of your institutions of higher learning. Your lot are a significant threat to the hard sciences and real scientific progress. You, not the Jesus people, are ruining the univerisities, transforming them from centres of knowledge production to ideology factories that prioritise feelings and identity over the pursuit of truth and knowledge. You, not MAGA. You. Liberals and libertarians outside the USA are largely united in this—well-founded—belief about you.
And for the umpteenth time, when you are confronted with real scientific evidence that undermines your core political dogmas, you simply ignore it. You’re no different from a Jesus person who says that dinosaur bones are God’s way of testing our faith. Your pretenses about abandoning superstition and prioritising reason simply AREN’T credible to people who do actually prioritise reason. You’re a caricature of a logical person.
I laugh at yours, and your fellow liberal-progressive Americans’ inability to genuinely confront and assess your own beliefs. To see, for example, your core norms as spectral concepts. To see the potential for deconstruction of your own values. YOUR inability to see your own PROFESSED (rather than sincere) beliefs about equality, inclusion, etc, as being predicated upon superstitious nonsense; vestiges from the Semitic cults that have dominated social life for centuries. It’s both your incapacity for genuine introspection mixed with your DISPOSITIONAL dishonesty, which educated people across the world find so repulsive and pathetic about your American ‘liberal-progressive’ culture. (Again, think here just about your Orwellian discourse around ‘inclusivity’. Time and again, it can be demonstrated, logically, that you don’t actually believe it, let alone that you have no credible social engineering competencies to implement your normative aspirations. Yet you persist in the regurgitating the slogans, no differently from a religious fanatic or a Maoist screaming quotes from the red book.) It’s how people KNOW, definitively, that you COULDN’T be progress. You’re a sham.
Your economic, military, and political strength is also SEEMINGLY dwindling by the day. Now really isn’t a good time for you to alienate your allies. You need us more than ever—not that we’re going to fight and die for your ill-conceived, global-imperialist, totalitarian ideals. Appealing to America’s economic, military, and political strengths are not going to help you—especially when your side of your culture war doesn’t breed, and is a demographic death spiral, hates ‘toxic masculinity’ and won’t be worth a damn in combat, and is fundamentally reliant upon outsiders moving in to prop up your system.
You’re doomed, AIDS. You’ve become weak and decadent. It’s entirely a function of your liberal-progressive culture.
Better Americans, who reject your dog shit values, MIGHT have a chance of salvaging their country from the decades of your intuition-driven policy fuckups. But the odds aren’t high.
Whenever I post these points to you, you NEVER reply on the merits. Aside from this being in part due to the role you see your serving by commenting on VC, the key reason you don’t reply adequately is because you can’t. You don’t have good responses. You lack real substance—like most liberal Americans.
The world after American hegemony looks grim—to say the least. But that doesn’t make you American liberals and progressives the good guys, or your beliefs any less retarded.
Cool fanfic, bro.
Coincidentally, people rarely reply on the merits to the hobos on the street corners ranting about the lizard people from Mars — and those guys have got more evidence in support of their claims than you do.
You almost invariably reply because you're a loser.
And when asked to put your money where your mouth is, you repeatedly back down because you're a coward.
What I do find disappointing in you particularly, unlike some of the others here, is that you're equally shameless when it comes to bullshitting about things you clearly don't know/haven't read (e.g., Reed and his work). Then again, you ARE an American after all.
How about this for inclusivity, AIDS?
Should we ban this form of cultural commentary? Should we expand what we allow on menus instead?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-22toakr9o
This is simply an error. Harris does not have a black parent. The one who wasn’t from India was from Ireland. He has even said so on camera.