Harris has proven many times she is inept. That has nothing to do with her race, so I really don't care what identity the DNC chooses to give her.

A human chameleon or a shapeshifters.

We all bleed the same. Hey! We look different than each other with different shades of skin. Cool! I like variety. It should not matter.
The most uncaring of what flavour creed, sex or anything else you are, are dickheads. You find them everywhere. That's what really matters.

Skin colour seems to be the issue but if we were all the same colour then the attention would be on something else. Eye/hair colour, tall/short, slim/fat, on and on it would go. Opportunists will always find a way to create division and descension. It is a form of control.

@Betty I was thinking when the (dominant ) gene gets a full mixing of skin colour genes then that one will win out. Yes there will still be variations in other genes.

You are confused Trump referred to Eliz Warren as Pocahontas because she incorrectly said she had a Native American( Indian) heritage.

Kamala is part Indian (Asian) and as such would never be referreed to as Pocahontas.

Ummmm NO, that is not correct, The largest "minority" group in the USA is Hispanic and that group is never referreed to as black. Additionally I never heard Asians referred to as black and I've lived in the USA for a long time.

@Alienbeing Maybe Hispanics are not referred to as "black" but then again neither were the Irish or Jews, that did not mean that they were not treated as "less than". Of course, you will not agree so I look forward to showing to me all the instances where that demographic is accurately represented in politics or business.

@273kelvin Your post was not related in any manner to "less than". YOUR post said "Also, there is a tendency to class everyone who is non-white as black"

You very poor attempt to wiggle out of hat you said is pathetic.

@Alienbeing Sounds like a job for PENANDIC MAN!

@273kelvin I suppose you knew what you meant, I sure don't

@Alienbeing Due to the strict classification and stratum of the American class/race system, You seem to be pedantically hung up on the term "black", where a more general term might be non-white. Either way, you have very little chance of eating at the top table. For example, most blacks are mixed race yet Obama was hardly ever referred to as such.

@273kelvin I'm not hung up on anything. I am enjoying your continued pathetic attempt to wiggle out of the statement you made in your 8/12 Post where YOU typed "here is a tendency to class everyone who is non-white as black" and then tried to partially back off the statement by typing "Maybe Hispanics are not referred to as "black" but then again neither were the Irish or Jews, that did not mean that they were not treated as "less than".

It was YOU, not me that used the term "black" while displaying your mistaken "understanding" of the "American class system".

Please contiune to show us what you don't know.

It does not. So why does media/ politicians always want to emphasise peoples heritage to certain audiences? That was kinda to question of my post. It should be a non issue, we are constantly told it should be a non-issue, so why do media mention it at all?

@puff Because the media likes divisiveness and it likes stirring up drama. Doing so creates outrage which in turn generates more clicks or subscriptions or whatever it is they're selling which in turn generates profit.

@puff Because the Dem Party loves to focus on identity politics, so they can exclude any discussion of class issues and economic inequality, since in those respects, they are not much different than the Repubs. And the corporate media also aids that, since they are fully supporting the status quo, of America being an oligarchy. If the corporate media and both major parties were not so totally onboard with maintaining our status quo, and instead actually were honest about the class war in America, of the rich against everyone else, the 1% against the 99%, then we would hear very little about identity politics and race. The real conflict and war in America is not between races, but between classes, which is a taboo subject in America.

Like Obama, Harris is just another colored mascot for corporate America, Wall Street, and the rich, so don't expect anything different from her than we got from Obama, if she is elected. I am so sick of all this focusing on her race, instead of her past record and policy positions, which is what should really matter to people, but because she isn't white, people will, like they did with Obama, project all of their own assumptions onto her, about how she will be more progressive and compassionate towards the underdogs, simply because she isn't a white male, and that is such horseshit!

The simple messages seem to be the hardest ones to get across to the masses.

I am as whitebread as Johnny Carson was, probably because I was born in the same state, lol. And I identify as Irish-American. But what matters to me, and what my identity is to me, is who I am as an individual, which is a socialist, a non-conformist, and a truthteller. That is how I wish others would group or identify me as, compared to other people, because those are the ways that I differ the most from other Americans.

Agree, shouldn't be an issue so why mention? Political media talking heads most guilty.

When checking race boxes on forms everyone should put "mixed" or "other." What is the purpose of dividing people into racial categories?

I agree, but that is not how "it" works in the "real" world.

@Gwen_Wanderer Yes, however, in her comment Mary McLeod Bethune is indicting and holding accountable those who "accept and acquiesce in the face of discrimination". She is pointing out the consequences of such cowardice.

@Bobbie63 The purpose is to divide people along those lines of identity, in order that they can be conquered and controlled, instead of allowing them to unite by class and achieve any true equality and peace, both in America and the world..

That is what I am saying. I noticed it in US media/ political commentary. They are the most guilty and it is a bit twisted. They are so focused on USA! USA! that any diplomatic sensitivities don't even enter the thought process ie many Indian's have darker complexions than Kamala, so as Kamala has a lighter tone and yet is "the first black female to blah blah" what do Indian people in general think when they see that? I don't think it's a friend winner.
It should not be an asset nor a detraction. It shouldn't be a thing at all. So why do media types keep using those terms?

@puff Could it be clickbait? As long as there are people who will make a big deal out of it then it will continue to be an issue.
All I care about is that she is qualified to do the job.

Alas, there are many people who disagree with that statement.

@puff it makes a difference to many Blacks. It tears down stereotypes of Blacks. Being a woman, I feel the same way about her sex being consistently being referred to as women have long suffered under negative stereotypes based only on a vagina. It is vindication that women are just as smart and capable as men.

I can say without reservation that my two Black former boyfriends do not mind at all that her color is referred to and they do not mind for various reasons. They certainly did not mind when it was pointed out that President Obama is Black. It is vindication that Blacks are capable and smart after centuries of being classified as subhuman.

@Gwen_Wanderer I understand totally and the thing is, I shouldn't as I am a foreigner. It really is a domestic issue, specific to the US.
I just mentioned it as I read Indian produced news. There was a bit of a buzz there with Kamala's rise, understandable considering her heritage. Working in India, it is full on racist with the caste system with whitening creams a big seller, no darker toned actors in Bollywood, only extra's. The language will be noticed over there.

@puff gotcha.

I totally agree with you

@Gwen_Wanderer People are just people. Some are good and some are not. Making an issue of colour, ethnic origin, or culture and then defending that only creates a never-ending feedback loop.

The fight for equality began decades ago and should no longer be an issue. I would like to see an end to that.

That is my two cents worth.

@Betty I agree that people are people--however, some react differently to stimuli based on culture and religion. I am not sure that the fight for equality will ever end; this is why I think it is important to keep discussing the ongoing fight.

@Gwen_Wanderer True. The fight for equality will never end, as long as there are gullible, bigoted people, and rich, powerful people, along with mass media owned by those same people, to manipulate the gullible to fighting with each other, instead of against their real, true enemy, which is the rich and the ruling class..

@TomMcGiverin and these aspects have been around "forever."

@Gwen_Wanderer As long as people take sides it will always be a controversy. I prefer not to judge based on anything other than the character and personality.

@Betty many people seem unable to agree to disagree. While there are some things no open to "agreement," i.e. racism and sexism, others are open to interpretation.

@Gwen_Wanderer There is only one race, and it is human. There are two sexes, male and female. There are many sexual orientations.
There are angry people, (some justified and some not.) There are happy and content people. There are people who enjoy doing harm and those who enjoy being helpful. Humans are a diverse group, wonderful and terrifying. Doesn't matter what part of the earth a person is from, they are either a good person or not.

@Betty I don't see things so cut and dried, but perhaps it is semantics. "Good" people do "bad" things at times.

@Gwen_Wanderer Any person who professes to be "Good" and deliberately does bad things is not a good person.

Good people make mistakes and what makes them good people is accountability and willingness to make amends.

@Betty "good" and "bad" are subjective in some cases. If you were to talk to my ex husband, he would say that I "bad" thing for leaving him. It also depends on culture. The Aztecs' practice of human sacrifice is abhorrent to us, but they did so because they truly believed that the sacrifices kept the universe intact. By their standards, they were not evil.

When I was on dating sites, a man contacted me. We exchanged a few emails and I was not impressed and had no intention of meeting him. Before I could inform him of that decision, he told me that he did not live in town, but came into town once a week. He then told me that he had molested his adopted Asian daughter and had to meet with a therapist or some types of group and that was why he came in once a week. Although I never said I would meet him, he said he told me because I would find out sooner or later if we got together.

I was horrified and told him what I thought of him. He said he was not a monster but had made a "mistake." Yeah, he made a "mistake," for sure, but would it had been a mistake had he not been caught? He was making "amends," but to me, he will always be a bad person who did a deliberate bad thing.

What classifies as "bad"? We have laws about justifiable homicide. Is stealing a loaf of bread "bad" if you are hungry?

@Gwen_Wanderer There are many nuances and personal definitions of good and bad. So, here is mine.

A good person will have no ill intent to be the cause of harm to others.
A bad person will do what pleases and benefits them without remorse for the harm they may cause others.

It is simple and the basis of all decisions and choices I make. When I make a mistake, I take responsibility for it and if possible I will make amends.

I can't speak to other cultures. What I expect of myself, I also hope to receive from others.

@Gwen_Wanderer To answer your last question.

"Is stealing a loaf of bread "bad" if you are hungry?"
When there are other options such as soup kitchens, shelters, food cupboards, and barter, then yes it is bad because it is theft.

Desperation, when there is no other option should be treated with compassion and understanding.