New York Times Responds After Zohran Mamdani Story Stirs Liberal Backlash

[BumRushDaShow]

39. Oh I remember the Rachel Dolezal issue

But you also have those who have been here for many generations who have an ancestor (or ancestors) who could and chose to "pass for white", and disappear into society as that.

And done more recently -

The recent ancestry genetic testing orgs are finding some of these instances popping up in the progeny.

What I am saying is that this underscores a long-entrenched problem that no one wants to tackle and it is at play in every aspect of life in the United States - and that includes elections.

If Mamdani had been born in South Africa, he might have been considered a "coloured" (not "white" or "black" ).

You have many within the (black) African diaspora community here in the U.S. who don't want to use a "color" designation and generally accept "African American". They know their origin nationalities on the African continent, including ethnic groups that they descend from. But then you have those who DO want to use "color", as they have little or no records over generations, of their family's ancestral homelands/ethnic groups, and have consciously chosen to avoid the ancestral nationality debate.

Sweeping the nonsensical system under the rug doesn't help make sense of it and this is why there were attempts TO bring this all to light to "teach" and it was of course attacked.

Whether the selection was "intentional" or not is irrelevant. It IS a "truism", like Muskrat's, which is why you usually see a prepend of "white South African". But would you see that applied for those who are African-descended who were born and raised in England (and whose ancestors were there for generations), where they could be called a "black Brit" or "black European"? I have seen the term but I am sure some might shudder at the designation.