In the late 1940s, the Kenyan colonial government decided to abolish the much-hated kipande and introduce a system of universal fingerprinting for all Kenyans. After World War I, the colonial state had dictated that all African men (outside of select regions) be finger-printed and issued a kipande, which listed their ethnicity, native reserve, and employment history. Worn in a metal case around the neck like a dog collar, the kipande was one of the most hated symbols of African subjugation. Many African leaders welcomed its abolishment, even while they remained ambivalent about the continued use of fingerprinting. Yet some of the most vocal opposition came from Kenya’s white settler community, who adamantly opposed the state’s plan to deracialize biometric registration. For them, mandatory fingerprinting was an authoritarian practice that reduced them to the level of “natives.” By demanding that literate populations be exempted from fingerprinting, white settler leaders reinforced the notion of white exceptionalism. Even as Kenya transitioned to a universal national identity system in the years after World War II, fingerprinting remained racially coded and structured by socio-economic privilege. This paper will show how efforts to deracialize identification regimes not only normalized the use of fingerprinting, but also reinforced the equation between white exceptionalism and white exemption. In addition, it will argue that the post-war fingerprinting controversy in Kenya reflects larger debates over the role of biometrics, which are often seen today as “post-racial” individualizing technologies.