Does this count as black Forum

[karmaman]

So my grandma is a black African (central African) so is it okay to put that under the demographic section? I am a mix of several things, but was wondering

[vanwinkle]

The key question is, how do you normally identify? Do you normally check the "black" or "African-American" box?

[karmaman]

TBH from what I remember I would always check several boxes,because like I said I am a variety of nationalities. And whats the difference between when they ask for Black or African and then AA?

[vanwinkle]

TBH from what I remember I would always check several boxes,because like I said I am a variety of nationalities. And whats the difference between when they ask for Black or African and then AA?

Checking multiple boxes is fine. You can check all the boxes that apply to you.

Usually, "Black/African-American" is just one box. They may only say one or the other, though I think that's pretty uncommon at this point.

[blackandstrong]

So my grandma is a black African (central African) so is it okay to put that under the demographic section? I am a mix of several things, but was wondering

For some reason, I hate the title of this thread.

[karmaman]

lol ya its still early here in Cali and I didn't exactly phrase that as well as I might have liked. Don't mean to come off as ignorant or racist, my bad

[CyanIdes Of March]

So my grandma is a black African (central African) so is it okay to put that under the demographic section? I am a mix of several things, but was wondering

For some reason, I hate the title of this thread.

Why? It's a legitimate question.

[Anonimo]

I have read that for someone to legitimately claim that they are black they must think of themselves black and they need at least a great grandfather/mother who was %100 AA.

PS I truly despise the term African American, and I think black people and everyone in the US should stop using it. It kinda implies that you are an american who belongs in Africa. Do white people call themselves European Americans? Also, not all regions in Africa have black people. I despise the subtle racism in the term. After that we can stop talking about races; maybe the stereotypes will fade away substantially over time.

[vanwinkle]

I have read that for someone to legitimately claim that they are black they must think of themselves black and they need at least a great grandfather/mother who was %100 AA.

Wherever you read that, it was wrong.

Requiring someone to be "100% AA", or even to have a parent/grandparent who was, would be ridiculous anyway; very few blacks in this country would be considered black under this rule.

PS I truly despise the term African American, and I think black people and everyone in the US should stop using it. It kinda implies that you are an american who belongs in Africa. Do white people call themselves European Americans? Also, not all regions in Africa have black people. I despise the subtle racism in the term. After that we can stop talking about races; maybe the stereotypes will fade away substantially over time.

This is not the type of discussion we permit in the on-topic forums. At all. If you want to debate the sociological or historical aspects of race, then do it in the Lounge. Any further discussion on this point will result in bans.

[Anonimo]

I have read that for someone to legitimately claim that they are black they must think of themselves black and they need at least a great grandfather/mother who was %100 AA.

Wherever you read that, it was wrong.

Requiring someone to be "100% AA", or even to have a parent/grandparent who was, would be ridiculous anyway; very few blacks in this country would be considered black under this rule.

PS I truly despise the term African American, and I think black people and everyone in the US should stop using it. It kinda implies that you are an american who belongs in Africa. Do white people call themselves European Americans? Also, not all regions in Africa have black people. I despise the subtle racism in the term. After that we can stop talking about races; maybe the stereotypes will fade away substantially over time.

This is not the type of discussion we permit in the on-topic forums. At all. If you want to debate the sociological or historical aspects of race, then do it in the Lounge. Any further discussion on this point will result in bans.

And you are totally right! your statement doesn't contradict mine at all. I never explicitly discussed what would happen if someone had a parent or a grandparent who was black or not black so I don't know where you get that from. I was talking about minimum ancestry requirements (AT LEAST) to be considered black like having a great grandparent who is black which makes someone 1/8 black. In the situation of all your family being white, asian or whatever you would need at least one great black grandparent -verifiable through evidence-to be considered black. Yeah totally unreasonable minimum requirement? having a parent or grandparent who is black does not pertain to my example of a minimum requirement.. I guess you could understand that having a parent or grandparent who is black totally surpasses the minimum stated of having at least a great grandparent who is black in a family were the rest are not black.

So in OPs situation he surpasses the requirement because it's not OPs great grandmother who is black but his grandmother surpassing de minimum requirement by one degree...

The 1/8 requirement could still be wrong but you should understand an argument first before saying that it's ridiculous.

[vanwinkle]

I was talking about minimum ancestry requirements (AT LEAST) to be considered black like having a great grandparent who is black which makes someone 1/8 black.

You said that they would need one grandparent who was 100 percent AA. Are you taking that statement back now?

Also, the notion of a "minimum ancestry requirement" is ridiculous.

The 1/8 requirement could still be wrong but you should understand an argument first before saying that it's ridiculous.

If your argument is that there is some hard "requirement" you can easily delineate, then it's ridiculous.

[Anonimo]

I was talking about minimum ancestry requirements (AT LEAST) to be considered black like having a great grandparent who is black which makes someone 1/8 black.

You said that they would need one grandparent who was 100 percent AA. Are you taking that statement back now?

Also, the notion of a "minimum ancestry requirement" is ridiculous.

The 1/8 requirement could still be wrong but you should understand an argument first before saying that it's ridiculous.

If your argument is that there is some hard "requirement" you can easily delineate, then it's ridiculous.

Yes. At least one great grandparent who was of both africans parents with african heritage. That was as far back as someone claiming to be AA could go if they did not have a parent or grandparent who was black, as a minimum or lets use a better word reasonable requirement. 1/8. Am I taking the statement back? It's not mine. And how could I be taking a statement back when the only thing I'm doing is rewording what I wrote? its there At LEAST. they need AT LEAST that heritage close to them to be considered AA one great grandparent who is black.

"if your argument is that there is some hard "requirement" you can easily delineate, then it's ridiculous."

Nice straw man but its not hard and probably not "easy" to delineate. I never said that. If someone establishes a minimum ancestry requirement to be considered black I believe that is very similar to what NA tribes require of their prospective members. Is it ridiculous?

[vanwinkle]

Am I taking the statement back? It's not mine.

Then whose is it? This forum is full of law students and lawyers, that is, people who get that you need sources to prove you're not talking out of your own ass. It's your statement until you can attribute it to someone more credible.

And how could I be taking a statement back when the only thing I'm doing is rewording what I wrote? its there At LEAST. they need AT LEAST that heritage close to them to be considered AA one great grandparent who is black.

This is ridiculous, because as a rule, it would suddenly make most black people not be black. Don't get me wrong, they'd still be black, they just couldn't call themselves black anymore because you (and your unnamed, unverified source) said so.

If someone establishes a minimum ancestry requirement to be considered black I believe that is very similar to what NA tribes require of their prospective members. Is it ridiculous?

That's a pretty big if, and tries to dance its way around my point, which is that nobody has established a minimum ancestry rule for being black, nor is anyone other than you attempting to do so. So, yes, it's ridiculous. It's ridiculous that you talk about it as some already-accepted rule when at this point it's just a hypothetical "if" that until recently only lived in the dark recesses of your mind.

TL;DR: OP, you should ignore everything Anonimo says, because he/she is a moron.

[ood]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/urm-applicant-faq.html

"Should I check the box for “URM” on my application?

This question (in various forms) plagues the URM forum and is a difficult one to address. In most cases, if you have to ask this question, the answer is probably no. Two general rules pertaining to this topic are (subject to disagreement):

The generally accepted threshold for claiming a race is ¼ (does not include Native Americans, which are a more grey area). Beyond that, claims of minority status tend to become a bit more dubious.
If you have never checked the box before, don’t check it now. If you have never identified as a minority, why start now? While very few educational institutes will attempt to confirm that your race is indeed your race, the Character and Fitness portion of the bar will certainly raise some questions about how you were not listed as [insert applicable minority status here] on LSAC/or undergraduate applications, but (conveniently) chose to do so for the URM-sensitive law school application process.
There are, of course, occasions where this question is legitimate. Most commonly, it comes from those applicants who are either mixed-raced persons who are concerned about checking one box and limiting themselves, or URM applicants from wealthy backgrounds who feel unjustified in checking a box and receiving an unfair boost.

There is really no right or wrong answer here; ultimately, you must choose the option that makes you most comfortable. For the former applicants, we (the authors) recommend checking the box(es) you feel most comfortable checking and expounding on any additional information in a “diversity statement”. For the latter applicant, we emphasize that you are not forced to check any box. In fact, on most applications there is an “I choose not to answer” box."

[Drake014]

So my grandma is a black African (central African) so is it okay to put that under the demographic section? I am a mix of several things, but was wondering

The answer to your question is yes.

Should you check it is a different matter.

[vanwinkle]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/urm-applicant-faq.html

"Should I check the box for “URM” on my application?

Holy God does that need fixed, because that is so, so wrong.

This is my biggest pet peeve about URM status discussions. There is no URM box. You self-identify your race, and whatever diversity you might add to the school. Whether the school decides to give you a URM boost, and how much of one, is up to the school.

I do agree with the part that says you should check what box/boxes you have normally checked in the past, though.

[Anonimo]

vanwinkle - Your argument its all over place. My initial reply is to your insulting description of my first post where you indicated that the concept is ridiculous. Have you no understanding of what is a minimum requirement? Do you understand this kind of requirements are meant to leave people out?

this is ridiculous, because as a rule, it would suddenly make most black people not be black. How did you get to this? let see if you can understand how a lot of people are not left out... in order to be rich you need a minimum of a $1 dollar bill (great grandparents) if you have a 5 dollar bill (parents or grandparents) then you have more than the requirement thus you don't need the one dollar bill and you are already rich! How would most black people be left out? Do most black people have only a great great grandparent who is black and nothing closer to them? Even If so, do you think people who are 1/64 black should be considered black? I won't express my opinion but some tribes think their members have to be 1/16 or more NA to be considered NA. Do you now see the resemblance of both concepts and how its current application in other groups makes the concept more likely, useful and coherent? Is it still "ridiculous"?

That's a pretty big if, and tries to dance its way around my point, which is that nobody has established a minimum ancestry rule for being black, nor is anyone other than you attempting to do so. So, yes, it's ridiculous. It's ridiculous that you talk about it as some already-accepted rule when at this point it's just a hypothetical "if" that until recently only lived in the dark recesses of your mind.

Maybe.. just maybe... it doesn't address that point because it was not meant to. When I have argued that I have verified and someone in fact is using this requirements for black? You say it is ridiculous and I say it's not. Can you argue in favor of your description of the concept for a minimum requirement as ridiculous? I have also never stated that arguing hypotheticals as if they were true is not ridiculous. I have never tried to state that this requirement is being used for blacks. I'm arguing against your description "ridiculous", which is an insult to the one that posts it as possible. Can you argue against the consistency of a concept within itself that you just described as ridiculous? This ridiculous you used just now is a different ridiculous to something else and not the concept itself which you first stated it was ridiculous. Yes aruguing hypotheticals as if they were true is ridiculous, so what? I have said I don't know for sure if its being used. How am i again talking like this is some already accepted rule?

Also, here is an article stating that similar rules do apply to groups and have been applied to black people (drop of black blood).

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics ... n-of-color

Do you see how possible, not ridiculous, and useful the application of a minimum requirement for blacks could be. Do you understand how requiring someone claiming to be black to have at least one great grandparent being %100 is useful to some people? Or do think anyone with a drop of black blood or 1/128 black ancestry should be able to claim he is black? Do you think this could be used in a school where they admitted a smartass claiming to be black with 1/128 black heritage? It's a minimum, a person who's father or grandparent is black has already surpassed the minimum. Then again, how is requiring someone to have at least a great grandparent who is truly black ridiculous? How is having a set standard for everyone who claims to be black ridiculous? It probably wouldn't be used on people who look black and claimed to be black but what about the people who claimed to be black but on the first day they suddenly look like something else?

Then whose is it? This forum is full of law students and lawyers, that is, people who get that you need sources to prove you're not talking out of your own ass. It's your statement until you can attribute it to someone more credible.
I say it was't my idea because it wasn't. It didn't originate in my mind. Still, this is completely irrelevant and the only reason I answered that is not my idea is because you are wrong and I won't lie.

"TL;DR: OP, you should ignore everything Anonimo says, because he/she is a moron"

Insults? really? Can you identify the fallacy in this argument? If you do I'll say you're right and leave this thread! It will be a good excuse for me to stop. I'm tired of explaining this to you.

[LSTfan]

.

[dingbat]

Well, the Aryan Brotherhood has adopted the one-drop rule....

personally, I think there should be two requirements:
1) whether you actually identify as being (part) black
2) if the adcom were to meet you, would they go WTF? Would you need to explain yourself?

That second one is probably most important. While there are some exceptions, if you would need to explain your selection, it's probably a bad idea.
Look at it this way. According to this article 1/3 of white americans have black ancestry, per their DNA. If all of them suddenly claimed AA status, the term would be meaningless

related article

[LSTfan]

.

[ScottRiqui]

Well, the Aryan Brotherhood has adopted the one-drop rule....

personally, I think there should be two requirements:
1) whether you actually identify as being (part) black
2) if the adcom were to meet you, would they go WTF? Would you need to explain yourself?

That second one is probably most important. While there are some exceptions, if you would need to explain your selection, it's probably a bad idea.
Look at it this way. According to this article 1/3 of white americans have black ancestry, per their DNA. If all of them suddenly claimed AA status, the term would be meaningless

related article

I'm sorry, but I think this is just bad advice. If someone can legally claim URM status, they absolutely should. Where you go to school and how much you pay is going to affect the rest of your life. Not taking advantage of something this significant???

The bolded part is the problem - without a concrete definition that you can point to, you're going to have to expect some scrutiny if you look like Opie from "The Andy Griffith Show" and have no history of identifying yourself as URM. Simply saying "I'm pretty sure my great-great-grandmother was (fill in the blank)" is going to get you the "hairy eyeball" from the adcomms at best, and at worst an outright ding for wasting their time and/or trying to "game" the system.

[dingbat]

The bolded part is the problem - without a concrete definition that you can point to, you're going to have to expect some scrutiny if you look like Opie from "The Andy Griffith Show" and have no history of identifying yourself as URM. Simply saying "I'm pretty sure my great-great-grandmother was (fill in the blank)" is going to get you the "hairy eyeball" from the adcomms at best, and at worst an outright ding for wasting their time and/or trying to "game" the system.

Thank you for putting that more eloquently than I could

[John_rizzy_rawls]

.

[dingbat]

Fair point.

[vanwinkle]

My initial reply is to your insulting description of my first post where you indicated that the concept is ridiculous.

My first reply to you spoke nothing of any "concept", I just described your ridiculous formula was ridiculous.

Have you no understanding of what is a minimum requirement? Do you understand this kind of requirements are meant to leave people out?

I do understand what the concept of a minimum requirement is. I also understand that minimum requirements are things used to exclude people.

I also know that there are no hard minimum requirements for how black you have to be to check "black". That has been my point this whole time. With no appreciation of the irony, you link to an NPR article that not only doesn't say there are firm minimum requirements for black ancestry, but points out how nebulous the whole concept of race and identification is.

Insults? really? Can you identify the fallacy in this argument? If you do I'll say you're right and leave this thread! It will be a good excuse for me to stop. I'm tired of explaining this to you.

Calling you an idiot wasn't an argument, it was what followed my argument. No fallacy there.

Please stop trying to explain things to me, until you know what you're talking about. I understand that could be a very long time from now.