"Thuglicans" and the Tea "Federation Party"

It was not just theory, it was the law, affirmed by the US Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson. Plessy was considered to be Black because he had one bi-racial grandparent.These days we let people declare their own race. I don't understand why anyone would object to the president identifying himself as Black or to Tiger Wood's taking a different take for himself.

True, but did even a single US state determine race based on the race of the mother? We can certainly point to historical examples where state law determined race based on the percentage of black and white ancestry.

If the president had lived in Virginia prior to Loving v. Virginia, would Virginia have prevented from marrying his current wife.

Partus sequitur ventrem was a method of determining slave status and not a method of determining race. Slave status was never identical with race as free black people existed at all times during the colonial period.That feeling of familiarity you experience when reading Artie's posts is not deja vu.

I don't disagree with you at all. We know that states made determinations. But I don't believe Artemis, who pretends he doesn't even know anything about race relations in the 1970s, can cite even a single example of a state using matrilineal descent to determine race. He's even wrong about his own state.And the whole thing exercise is pointless too boot.Regardless of how states did things in the 19th century, we all know how race is determined today. We self identify using any method we chose, if and when we find it necessary to make any statement at all about our race. The idea that Barrack is doing something wrong because he doesn't use some method Artemis claims was used 'back in the day' is total nonsense.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.