Yes. I do. Which is why the article is so ridiculous. What really defines who is black? Wesley Snipes is black because he's the darkest guy in Hollywood? What about a dark skinned Indian who shares 100% of the extra melanin generating genes? Maybe he's even darker than Wesley Snipes. But no... it must be a lighter skinned mulatto (most of the "blacks" you refer to have white ancestry due to race mixing) whose ancestors were slaves in America to consider them to be black right?
I can't tell if you're being sincere, but your attitude is common enough among well-meaning STEM types that I'll assume you are.
There never was nor will there ever be a cut-and-dried, scientifically-precise definition of "black." That's because the concept of "being black" and, in fact, the entire modern notion of "race" are inherently political in the broadest sense of the term. They were invented and subsequently weaponized as a means for a certain class of people to achieve their political outcomes at the expense of another class of people.
Again, I'm talking about the US only.
You are "black" if you are collectively labeled as "black", treated as "black", and are otherwise identified in whole or in part by your "black-ness". Yes, that means that someone's "black-ness" might vary across time, geography, socioeconomic status, who they're interacting with, and any number of other squishy-wishy, imprecise axes.
The idea that "being black" corresponds to something concrete and inherent in a person is part of the lie at the heart of the concept of "race".
