South Carolina Republican Governor Lied About Being White

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 3:43 AM GMT
    http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/south-carolina-republican-governor-nikki-haley-lied-about-being-white/
    ...the prominent Republican, who has led crusades against voter fraud, falsified her voter registration form, claiming that she was a white woman...

    ...despite the fact that she is Southeast (sic*) Asian, she repeatedly lied about her race on government forms, checking the box “white” on her driver’s license and 2001 voter ID form.

    chart-oil.jpg
    *freedom's post (good catch)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 5:02 AM GMT
    She's South Asian, not Southeast Asian.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 12:02 PM GMT
    Maybe she identifys with being white.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14348

    Jun 26, 2015 1:37 PM GMT
    South Asians are part of the Caucasian race. They are darker skinned but are still Caucasian. So technically she did not lie about her race. I suspect that this might be extreme right wing backlash against her because she wants to remove the Confederate flag from the State House grounds.
  • jjguy05

    Posts: 459

    Jun 26, 2015 1:57 PM GMT
    Race is social, not scientific, and the parameters of the "races" have always shifted throughout recent history. The US Census places South Asians within the "Asian" category, alongside East Asians. Which intuitively makes no sense, but that's how it is according to the US Census. Censuses in other countries, like the United Kingdom, Brazil, Canada, or South Africa categorize people differently than the US, because all of these are subjective, not scientific. In Mexico, where the population has a mixture of Amerindian and European ancestry, people vary from very brown to very white, but the Mexican census considers "indigenous" only those that actively continue to live a pre-Columbian lifestyle and culture, which is a tiny proportion of the population.

    South Asians (not to be confused with Southeast Asians) were indeed once considered "Caucasoid", according to an old "race classification system" that categorized everyone into only three races. That three-race classification is now regarded as anachronistic.

    South Asians are actually a mixture of two "races"...the indigenous/original inhabitants, the dark-skinned Dravidians and the light-skinned Indo-Aryans who invaded the region a couple thousand years BC. This is why, today, southern Indians are darker than northern Indians; northerners have more Indo-Aryan ancestry, southerners have more Dravidian ancestry. It's also the reason for the linguistic divide in India. Northern Indian languages like Hindi, Bengali, and Gujarati are Indo-European languages, meaning they're related to European languages (English, Spanish, German, Russian, Greek, French, Italian, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese, Danish, Serbo-Croatian, etc), and completely unrelated to southern India's Dravidian languages (like Tamil, Kannada, and Malayalam).

    Race is mostly a social construct. There's actually more genetic diversity within the Black "race" (people of Sub-Saharan ancestry), than among the rest of the human population. This is due to the fact that Sub-Saharan Africa has been populated by humans far longer than any other continent, thus more genetic variation among humans developed there. But, because we define race to a large extent by skin color (which is merely the product of human adaptation to climate), we group all of these people as a single "race".

    In other words, race is mostly bullshit, entirely social based on very few selected genetic traits -those we're taught to see as most obvious- and not at all scientific.

    All modern humans belong the same true race in a scientific sense (subspecies), Homo sapiens sapiens. Other races, like Homo sapiens idaltu, have been extinct for hundreds of thousands of years.

    In American society, "race" is also a cultural identifier and your perceived race also determines how society treats you (i.e. discrimination), so that's why we ask people for "race" in the US Census or in surveys, job applications, etc.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 4:14 PM GMT
    Recent genetic research confirms that Europeans have a mixture of genes from three groups one of which is East Asians. But linguistically without using genes, it was known that European languages derived from Indo-European language from East Asia.

    Regardless, today, no white person would recognize a South Asian as white and no South Asian would recognize a white person as South Asian.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4864

    Jun 26, 2015 8:02 PM GMT
    Why should it even be an issue? She certainly looks white, as many light-skinned Indians do. Racial definitions are rather arbitrary anyway.

    In her photos, she looks like a very strong woman in a good sort of way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 8:16 PM GMT
    FRE0 saidWhy should it even be an issue? She certainly looks white, as many light-skinned Indians do. Racial definitions are rather arbitrary anyway.

    In her photos, she looks like a very strong woman in a good sort of way.


    Because it opens questions of hypocrisy (rallying against voter fraud while registering dishonestly even if that minor lie would matter only to a census taker), spinelessness (pride of heritage v closeting her true self) and deception (not being honest with her constituents). Even if all that's on a minor scale, it adds up somewhat to the person's character.

    The amusing part of course was the timing, right after a "black" person was found out to be white.

    That's why I posted a color chart so we know who we are. You should always try to match your living room.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4864

    Jun 26, 2015 10:17 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    FRE0 saidWhy should it even be an issue? She certainly looks white, as many light-skinned Indians do. Racial definitions are rather arbitrary anyway.

    In her photos, she looks like a very strong woman in a good sort of way.


    Because it opens questions of hypocrisy (rallying against voter fraud while registering dishonestly even if that minor lie would matter only to a census taker), spinelessness (pride of heritage v closeting her true self) and deception (not being honest with her constituents). Even if all that's on a minor scale, it adds up somewhat to the person's character.

    The amusing part of course was the timing, right after a "black" person was found out to be white.

    That's why I posted a color chart so we know who we are. You should always try to match your living room.


    If people can be transgender, why not transracial?

    Do census forms define race so people will know how to respond?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2015 1:22 AM GMT
    FRE0 said
    theantijock said
    FRE0 saidWhy should it even be an issue? She certainly looks white, as many light-skinned Indians do. Racial definitions are rather arbitrary anyway.

    In her photos, she looks like a very strong woman in a good sort of way.


    Because it opens questions of hypocrisy (rallying against voter fraud while registering dishonestly even if that minor lie would matter only to a census taker), spinelessness (pride of heritage v closeting her true self) and deception (not being honest with her constituents). Even if all that's on a minor scale, it adds up somewhat to the person's character.

    The amusing part of course was the timing, right after a "black" person was found out to be white.

    That's why I posted a color chart so we know who we are. You should always try to match your living room.


    If people can be transgender, why not transracial?

    Do census forms define race so people will know how to respond?


    Well, I never gave it any thought before but just quickly what comes to mind is that some things are fluid while others are not. Water when not frozen and, depending on circumstances, sexuality can be fluid. But even if you identify other than what was biologically assigned, even while you might be able to change your own physical sexual assignment to whatever functional degree, that you have some measures of control over your identifying, you never have control over your parents' identities. They are who they are and you were born through them. So while we have rights to identify ourselves generally and sanely, unless your parents had a combined total of 16 legs, you can't really identify yourself as octopus.
    giphy.gif
    And regardless, census is not the definer of the other aspects of the act willfully committed: no amount of slight of hand will turn that trick honest. It wasn't the worst anyone could do, not by far, but there's really no way of spinning that as mistaken--ooops, wrong box--or justified even as self expression without having been upfront from the get go instead of discovered later by others. Especially not when you know that being other than white could have hurt your chances for election there.

    Yes, we know, but they like the Hindu people in Louisiana.
    It all works out in the masala.