You are not going to dismiss me from a line of questioning I initiated.

If you had made a little more effort to go through the various contributions to this thread, you would have seen that you and I do not disagree on the need for clear distinction between race and ethnicity when discussing this topic. In fact it is one of the first comments I made and I've brought it up, repeatedly, throughout the post.

>MTV initially refused to play Billie Jean because he was a
>nigga.
>
>The Tom Sneddon got the law changed and scoured the earth for
>10 years looking for evidence to put Michael Jackson in jail
>because he was a nigga.
>
>Sony attempted to screw Michael Jackson out of his back
>catalogue because he was a nigga .
>
>Bill O'Riley was talking about child molestation accusations
>on the day of MJ's funeral because he was a nigga.
>
>We know MJ was a nigga because he was treated like one. His
>plastic surgery and his skin disease did not stop the industry
>and the media and the police from treating him like a nigga.
>
>So it is pretty racist to assume that MJ could stop being a
>nigga just by saying he wasn't one anymore.
>
>And BTW, he never claimed to not be a nigga, but in fact,
>maintained to his dying day that he got a raw deal because no
>matter what he accomplished, it didn't stop him from being
>treated like a nigga.
>
>Had MJ claimed that he was no longer a nigga, he would have
>gotten the side eye and still would have gotten the same nigga
>treatment that he got when he was alive.
>

Again, that he would get a side eye for claiming a race other than black is problematic, logically. This is also why I proposed the case of Dominicans with significant African ancestry who do not claim to be of black race. In fact the Dominican Republic might be the perfect case to wrangle the logical flaws in the perspective as well as yours because you have a range of individuals, all with significant African ancestry, that claim different racial identities and are treated with varying levels of discrimination.

You are arguing as if Black Americans are the only group of black race on the planet. A sound perspective on race would have some external validity in application.

>
>
>I am not having this conversation with you unless you
>can articulate, in your own words, what the difference is
>between race an ethnicity.
>
>Because if you think you can change youe race by claiming to
>not be Black, you are saying that Black people can become
>immune from racism if they decide to be white.
>

What are you even talking about? Did I say this is what I think? I am trying to make sense of a position that appears to place almost exclusive weight on the racial identity 'vehemently claimed' by individuals, but in an inconsistent fashion. If you do not subscribe to the view either, stop derailing and allow those that do to explain.

>
>Distinguish race from ethnicity and maybe we can talk.
>if you can't draw that distinction, there is no need to
>have this conversation.
>
>

My preferred style of discussion is to be respectful, even during confusion or disagreement. In my eyes you have crossed that line. So I actually encourage you to stop replying to me as you have said, thanks.