[1659447091]

Sure but how does that(the broader classification based on visual vibes) reconcile with the `One Drop Rule` the other poster included as a racal classification? There were people who 100% of the time would say someone was "white" but then they had a black ancestor and suddenly they are not white anymore -- yet if your ancestor is the US version of Native American and you vibe "white", you get shamed for claiming Native American "race". Which one do we go with?

There are statics somewhere that had some 20%+ of people who are looked at as "white" in the US actually have recent African ancestors as well. The Irish and Italians had to fight to be called "white" in the US because in the US being "white" meant being at the top of the class hierarchy. Which is all the race thing is, class hierarchy, and why no one can actually define a taxonomy for it because it's based on the arbitrary.

[traderj0e]

They currently go with whatever the person looks like. I'm not saying it's right, but it does exist. Before the crackdown on DEI, Gates Scholarship would've rejected me for being white, even if I had some non-white ancestor.

[1659447091]

I get that. My comments are strictly within the context of the OP about what would happen if you just lie. If someone rejected you for claiming `asian`, for example, and you have an immigrant great-grandmother from <asian-country>, you would be able to challenge it.

I'm saying they can not prove one is lying because there is no way to be formally classified. I pointed out one of many low hanging fruit ways an argument can be made from the links the other posted included. Being a more creative type, and having money with time to spare, one could find a way to argue whatever race they wanted. Even people with stricter bounds for themself are likely to find a trail of DNA and/or lineage for many of the cherry-picked classes on those forms.(especially in North America)