[klipt]

> If Fardool Zarkari wants to go by Frank Zach, that's something that he should be able to do.

It's not difficult to change your legal name. My ancestor had a foreign-sounding surname which got Anglicized upon arrival to America. If that's all it took to make his descendants (including me) "privileged", getting your name changed seems like a no brainer!

[gte910h]

1> Many families hate you if you do this. My father in law to this day still gets crap for shortening their Polish name to a easy subversion of it. Many people in certain neighborhoods accuse you of acting white to change your name, etc. It's common in Asian households to have an American set of names and an Asian set of names. Legally, sometimes it's one, sometimes it is the other, other times, it's a mix.

2> It's incredibly parent based (i.e. the people who gave you the sometimes crippling name) while you're under 18. By that time, you've been on social networks for years as the "bad" name. You then have to convince everyone to not call you by the old name. As a person who has been plagued by a nickname to my first name that my parents like, that I do not nor have ever used, I can attest changing what people call you is really hard. About 10% of people still call me the nickname, which forwards the nickname to contexts they see me in.

3> I'd like to quote you the state of Washinton's feelings on the common law precedent for name changes:

>Common Law Name Change: Common law name change results by simply using the new name consistently and exclusively for all purposes. This is legal because a person has a common law right to use any name he or she chooses. No legal proceedings or attorneys fees are involved in this type of name change. The common law method has disadvantages because many governmental institutions may require documentation proving that a valid name change has been made. Since you have not gone to court and acquired a court order for your name change, you will need some other document to satisfy this requirement.

I find the complications of #2 above yet the rights implied by #3 mean if a person signs an affidavit that their name is X the social networking site should get the hell over itself and let them be named X on the site, whether they have completed the name change yet or not.

[klipt]

1> The same people will hate you for using a "white" name on Google+. Either you use your "nonwhite" name despite the disadvantage, in the hope that enough people using "nonwhite" names will normalize them and remove said disadvantage. Or you use a "white" name because you don't feel like fighting that battle (which yes, will make you a "collaborator" in some people's eyes). You can't really do both.

(Although we're really talking about "English" sounding names here, since Polish people are hardly "nonwhite".)

2> Parents have a lot of control over our lives - sad but true. For example someone with crazy cult-following parents is more likely to end up in a crazy cult. Or for a more mundane example, someone with rich parents is less likely to be saddled with student loans. (The European approach to this inequality is to make education free, but try do that in the USA!)

I don't think you're forced to use a nickname that isn't your legal name though.

3> Sure, a signed affidavit should be just as valid as a court order - I can't imagine a social networking site would actually bother to check either. The numbers are just too big.