Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Symmachus wrote:It seems to me a very American idea that you can just be something because you choose to claim that you are that something, no matter what the criteria of the group you claim to belong might be according to others and how those criteria might be structured and ranked by other members of the group. One can self-identify as X while not actually gaining the recognition of belonging to X in any significant way by others who self-identify as X. Does that mean the self-identifier is not X? Not necessarily, but it means you have to give pretty compelling reasons why we should take that self-identifier as seriously as (not to say more seriously than) the majority when we are discussing group X.
Unless I've missed something in these various threads, I'm surprised no one has brought up Rachel Dolezal.
This is an interesting perspective. Is Mormonism just Identity Politics? And I do feel comfortable using that term since Mormonism, much like Islam, has set itself up as a Total System (Kingdom of God, etc...).
I guess the real question is if you slap enough foundation on your face, and you get a job representing the in-group, does that make you Mormon Afro-American?
V/R
Doc
Since she self-identifies as African American, then why wouldn't you take her perspectives and views as well as her actual race, into account in determining what it means to be African American?
