When people mention race as about ancestry, it's a good idea to inform them that Obama's mother is a descendant of an enslaved African-American.
The "one-drop" rule isn't as clean as people think.
A very famous American-American journalist has a "white" parent and like most ADOS, "complex" ancestry.
They are called the n-word rather regularly.
Race is and always has been a social and political label that says much less about a person's genetic or genealogical ancestry than people think.
Finally I'll end with a reminder that we're all much closer related than people think. Just a few thousand years ago *everyone* reading this had *all* the same ancestors.
Race is a social construct with very real consequences, but it's claims to biology is weak at best.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Some people instinctively oppose calling out racism because they see being against racism as being woke, and they've decided anything woke is bad.
It's a weird kind of ideological partisanship where people will turn off their critical thinking rather than be seen as endorsing any kind of "wokeness".
A plea to the so-called anti-woke is not to paint yourself into such a corner that your "tribe" is racism, if only the subtle kind.
If you agree with the goal, then use your voice to call out racism.
I wanted to address some of these myths about black advantage because they are frequent refrains.
Black students are underrepresented in college enrollment. This to me reflects all the obstacles they faced to even reach the college gate. I obviously reject ideas of biological or cultural inferiority. Thus, black kids writ large don't have an advantage getting into college.
Scholarship data is hard to find by race. The most recent I could find was over a decade old. Black kids got more needs-based scholarship, but overall, white students got more in scholarship funding than others relative to population. There's no overall white disadvantage.
A black child growing up facing structural and systemic racism reaches college having suffered a massive disadvantage. A school then making adjustments for this reduces the disadvantage.
I get people who think black folks are either biologically or culturally inferior will think that there is no meaningful disadvantage getting to college.
They should at least understand the views of those who reject those premises.
I stand by the position that society owes a debt not just to children facing racism, but all children who grow up with societal adversity. The poor and the marginalized deserve *explicit* steps to help them. That's only a fraction of the weight of the adversity they face.
If someone says they won't sleep with a specific Jewish person, that's perfectly fine. If they don't go out of the way to say anything, that's fine too.
If they explicitly say they won't date *any* Jewish person, yeah, I've got questions.
Now in truth, people are allowed to have their preferences, even if those are not immune from judgement. Most people don't go out of their way to say they wouldn't date a Jewish person. I don't think we should go around checking what's inside people's hearts either.
To go around explicitly stating, in public, that you wouldn't date a person of X identity invites public judgment. Don't misunderstand, that's okay in most cases. It all depends on what society and those around you judge.
Depending on your level in chess, you can look at a position and just have no idea what the right move is and why. All while it's just obvious to a stronger player.
Share my misery. White to move. Can you find the right idea and why?
I'll post the right answer in a bit. It's so subtle, but so clear once you see it. It's the fact that I didn't see it right away that's so frustrating.
There's nothing tactical, and that's how we often approach puzzles. The key is 1. b4, preventing black from taking the c5 pawn with a piece. After 1...bxc5, white plays 2. b5! and black is left with weak doubled pawns.