Re:Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in ra...
by robertlagrant on Tuesday April 04, 2023 @07:05AM
(#35437743)
I think I agree, but I don't think what you say there is a good argument. You could apply it to hair colour groups (e.g. fair hair, dark hair, red hair) as well to prove the non-existence of hair colour.
Re:Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in ra...
by vkou on Tuesday April 04, 2023 @01:22PM
(#35442973)
> What race was he?
What bearing does 'race' have that on anything I said? The law in question solely speaks of 50% pre-1778 Hawai'ian ancestry. It doesn't say anything about 'race' genetics, skin color, hair color, or any other hereditary characteristics. It's a pretty simple question, that does not require unscientific hair-splitting - simply trace up your family tree, and count where your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents lived in 1778.
But since you've asked, Obama does not meet that criteria. His maternal grandparents are from Kansas, and his paternal grandparents are from Africa. Growing up in Hawai'i does not entitle him to those particular reparations settlers chose to grant to Hawai'ian natives.
Re:Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in ra...
by notch898a on Tuesday April 04, 2023 @01:37PM
(#35443239)
HHCA says for eligibility:
any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778
You have to have blood of races that were on the islands before 1778. In practice a commission decides if you're the right race.
Race-based laws are nonsense, because the concept of "race" itself is a pseudoscientific nonsense. There's no objective way to tell a "race" of many (or maybe even most?) people. Take President Obama for example. What race was he?